However, absent is the citizen's right to information (although the Press Law Act of 1984 invokes such a law - see below) nor right to petition the Constitutional Court (CC) for review. These provisions of the existing constitution still reflect the communist approach and are thus vague. The wording of most provisions is not designed to allow direct implementation at court. Despite this, and the fact that Poland is a leading country in terms of the number of complaints filed to the Strasbourg Tribunal of Human Rights, there do not seem to be, at present, any significant abuses of these rights.
Work on a new constitution is in progress. The basic aim of designing a new Constitution is to give clear legal meaning to all basic rights and, at the same time, avoid raising expectations which are unlikely to be fulfilled. It has been proposed that a right of access to environmental information be included, as well as environmental protection and sustainable development being amongst the principle tasks of the Polish Republic. It is suggested that the new constitution should contain the duty of all public authorities to support citizen's activities regarding environmental protection.
Local referendum may be used by residents as a means of deciding on local issues (Art.72 of the Constitutional Act of 1992). According to the detailed rules concerning local referendums provided for in the Local Self-Government Act of 1990 and the Local Referendum Act of 1991, the right to call a referendum is granted (Art.8 of the 1991 Act) to every resident, group of residents or an association, provided (Art.13 of the 1990 Act) the petition is supported and signed by 10% of local residents with the right to vote. According to Art.14 of the 1991 Act, local authorities have 30 days to accept or refuse the petition. If the petition is refused or not answered within that time, the petitioner has 14 days to file a claim to the Administrative Court (Art.16 of the 1991 Act). Local referendum is often used with relation to environmental issues in Poland. For example, opponents to the new crude oil terminal in Swinoujscie will hold a second referendum in October in an attempt to abolish the local authorities who granted planning permission for the project (the first referendum failed to succeed).
Public participation in legislation and rulemaking is also provided by provisions in laws, but gives only limited possibilities. The Consultation and Referendum Act of 1987 provides for a public comment and notice procedures. It also concerns the process of rulemaking within the various legislative and executive bodies at national, regional and local level. However, these procedures do not grant citizens the right to initiate law/rulemaking and do not require all draft laws, rules, governmental programs and plans be publicly available and subject to public comment and notice. It is at the discretion of authorities whether to consult their proposals with the public or not. According to Art. 8 of the 1987 Act, authorities may decide to carry out public consultation either on their own initiative or upon the request of trade unions, farmers' unions or other associations. This clause includes environmental non-governmental organizations (NGOs), but does not include individual citizens. If the request is refused, reasons must be given for doing so, but the petitioner does not have the right of appeal in court.
The 1987 Act allows an authority's freedom regarding the scope and the method of conducting public consultations. The Act merely states that the public should be informed regarding the subject matter of consultation, aims and predicted effects of the proposed law/rule/program, place and time (no shorter then 30 days) of public comment and notice and, finally, about comments and proposals submitted and the way they were included. Certain fields, such as land use planning (see below) have separate procedures that include detailed requirements as to public comment and notice.
There are various opportunities for public participation in the parliamentary legislative process and NGOs/the public are relatively active in this field. Participation ranges from mass demonstrations and riots in front of the parliamentary premises to preparing new draft laws - a form often used by trade unions and non-parliamentary opposition parties. Environmental NGOs usually limit their participation to giving comments, reservations or using "green" Members of Parliament (MPs) for pushing their views. There are also examples of initiating entirely new laws. For example, in 1980 there was already a draft Nature Conservation Act prepared (the so called citizens' draft) which, although not adopted, influenced further lawmaking. Environmental NGOs did prepare ecological provisions for a new constitution, but failed to collect the 500,000 signatures necessary to submit the proposals to the Constitutional Commission which is officially responsible for such provisions. None the less, the Commission not only considered, but also approved, most of the proposals as a result of the activity.
Public participation at governmental level is regulated by a kind of social covenant called the Pact on State-Owned Enterprise in Transition, signed in 1993 by the government, which contains a number of new legal provisions regulating public participation in government policy and law drafting. A Trilateral Commission for Social-Economic Issues was established to reach consensus between the government, trade unions and employers. There is a general dissatisfaction towards governmental environmental decisions, which was clearly articulated at the recent meeting in Warsaw on June 19-20, 1995 on the Environmental Action Program for Central and Eastern Europe organized by the Parliamentary Commission for Environmental Protection and Milieukontakt.
NGOs are invited to participate by the Ministry of Environment (MoE) in meetings and can comment environmental draft laws and policy documents, albeit in an ad hoc rather than a regular way. In 1993, NGOs prepared draft regulations regarding public participation in law and rulemaking within the practice of the MoE and lobbied for adopting them. The minister refused to adopt the proposed regulations, but issued a decision requiring copies of all draft laws and rules prepared by the MoE to be stored in the Unit for Ecological Education and distributed there at the request of NGOs and the public, with a purpose of enhancing public comment and notice. This decision has not been fully observed by all the involved units of the MoE but, at least, gives formal basis for request. This, together with the extremely cooperative approach of the Unit for Ecological Education, gives opportunity to have a better insight into the law and rulemaking activity of the MoE for NGOs and the public.
On the local level, citizens very often use their right to call a local referendum for the purpose of actually abolishing the local authorities themselves. Most of these attempts, however, have failed because of the high threshold limit: A referendum will be declared null and void unless 30 percent of the residents with the right to vote participate.
At the same time, anyone has the right to file, free of charge, a complaint to the Citizens' Rights Ombudsman, an office created to safeguard citizens rights by Art.36a of the Constitution. The Citizens' Rights Ombudsman Act of 1987 allows the Ombudsman the power to monitor the activities of all authorities and public bodies, and to intervene if certain laws, rules or decisions abuse citizens' rights. The Ombudsman often exercises control in environmental cases. Recently, the Ombudsman petitioned the Constitutional Tribunal to adjudicate on a legal dispute between the environmental minister and the local authorities in Krakow. The latter established a specially protected zone within the city by a local act which involved more stringent emission limits, and the minister claimed that the act was invalid because of the respective changes in the regulations of the Council of Ministers.
There are other remedies available for citizens. As mentioned above, citizens cannot directly challenge laws and regulations at the Constitutional Tribunal.
They may, however, challenge local laws at the administrative court. According to Art. 101 of the Local Self-Government Act of 1990, anyone whose legal interests or rights are abused by a local authority resolution may challenge the resolution at the administrative court. This tool, as opposed to the aforementioned local referendum, does not seem, however, to be used often by NGOs and public in environmental cases.
The New Act on the NSA of May 1995 (valid from November 1995) seems to significantly extend the powers of the NSA and improves public access. The NSA, in certain cases, is now entitled to adjudicate a case in merit. In addition to the administrative decisions and resolutions (by-laws) of local authorities, all kinds of individual acts of public administration are subject to NSA review, as are legal acts of provincial administration. In the case of local authority resolutions (by-laws), a kind of class action is possible whereby a person can file a lawsuit on behalf of residents who authorize this person to act on their behalf. Associations can now file a lawsuit to the NSA without having participated in the administrative procedure "with the rights of the party", but simply by showing that the case falls within its statutory goals.
The new NSA Act seems to be a major breakthrough in legal practice, opening immense new possibilities for successful public participation. First of all, it seems to be removing one of the biggest constraints to challenging decisions at courts: Very often local environmental groups are established in response to an immediate threat (most often: proposals for an incineration or waste disposal site, or a highway) but, before they become organized formally, it is too late to officially participate in the proceedings. Under existing rules, this excludes the possibility of challenging a decision in the NSA, as the most recent case of the Chojnow hazardous waste incineration plant exemplifies: local residents established a chapter of the Polish Ecological Club, only to have their appeal rejected by the environmental minister on the grounds that they had not initially been participating in the proceedings as an association "with the rights of the party" and thus could not challenge the decision.
Under the new NSA Act, associations will still be able to challenge decisions in such cases. The new Act makes subject to review not only administrative decisions, but also other kinds of administrative acts. A path seems to be opening whereby such acts as plans for highways may be challenged. Until now, these have not been subject to NSA review, despite being the most important authorizations (to which Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) requirement is connected) in the process of constructing a highway.
Procedural rights of a party are defined in Art.28 of the 1960 Code, according to which a party in the administrative procedure is "anyone whose legal interest or duty the proceedings concern, as well as anyone who demands the authority's action, be it in interest or duty". A party has very broad procedural rights, namely the right to raise objections, the right to be heard, the right to access all files concerning the case (excluding those protected as the state secret - Art.74) and the right to make copies of those files. A party also has the right to initiate review procedure - firstly at the next higher administrative authority and then, the final decision may be challenged at the administrative court (Art.197:1). The 1960 Code provides for special participation, rights for the civic associations. These include the following:
The right to initiate proceedings
Civic associations may petition authorities to initiate proceedings concerning other subject's rights or duties (Art.31:1:1). In the case of a refusal, the petitioner may lodge a complaint to the next higher authority (Art.31:2).
The right to participate
Civic associations may petition authorities for permission to participate in proceedings concerning other subject's rights or duties (Art.31:1:2). It is provided that the motivation is their statutory goals and the public interest requires it. In the case of a refusal, the petitioner may not only lodge a complaint to the next higher authority (Art.31:2), but also file a complaint to the administrative court (Art.196:3:1). If the petition is accepted, the association participates in the proceedings "with the rights of the party" (Art.31:3). This means it has exactly the same procedural rights as the party itself, including the right to challenge the final decision (even if in favor of the party) at the administrative court (Art.197). Various NGOs, including many ecological associations, use these provisions and there are a number of appeals and lawsuits to the NSA filed by associations "with the rights of the party".
The right to be notified
Art.31 requires that, if the authority instituting proceedings recognizes that any association might be interested in participation and that the public interest requires this participation, this association should be informed about instituting such proceedings. This provision is often not properly implemented because authorities simply do not know which organizations they should inform.
The right to be heard
According to Art.31:5, a civic association which does not participate "with the rights of the party", has the right to submit an opinion concerning the case.
The right to a hearing
As a rule, the 1960 Code provides mainly for "cabinet" proceedings. It is also required if a hearing makes proceedings shorter or simpler. A hearing is obligatory (Art.89) in cases where a specific provision of a substantive law explicitly requires it - e.g. the Water Law Act of 1974 requires hearings in the case of issuing water pollution permits or imposing respective non-compliance fines.
The following are called to participate in the hearing: all parties involved (including affected third parties), witnesses and experts and associations and individuals whose factual interests might be affected and whose participation is motivated by the subject of the case (Art.9). They must all be informed in writing at least seven days in advance in regard to the time, venue and subject matter of the hearing (Art.91 and 92).
If the authority has reason to believe that there may be other parties likely to be affected, besides those already called, the above information should be publicly displayed. Except for parties and associations acting as "participants with the rights of the party", rights of other participants are limited to providing statements and evidence. In particular, they do not have the right to challenge the final decision at the administrative court.
The provisions regarding a hearing, unless substantive law provides a mandatory hearing, are not widely observed. Authorities rarely call a hearing in cases where it is justified by the 1960 Code provisions. For example, almost all planning permission related to EIA concern controversial and hazardous development projects and therefore a hearing should be called.
Access to information is heavily constrained by the State and Official Secrets Act of 1982. This Act provides authorities with broad discretion in classifying information as secret. There is no clear and constant policy in this respect with regard to environmental matters. Authorities often tend to treat pollution data concerning specific plants as confidential. Disclosure requirements in environmental laws are very vague and do not provide for any procedural rules - e.g. Art.28:1 of the State Environmental Protection Inspectorate Act of 1991 declares as follows: "The State Environmental Protection Inspectorate safeguards informing the public about the state of the environment.". The actual data regarding the state of the environment is relatively accessible as opposed to data concerning individual polluters.
Apart from the Part VI Title 2, EPA 1980 provides some public participation provisions in relation to the status of environmental protection funds which are "arms-length" bodies established to operate with the money from pollution charges and non-compliance fines. This money is earmarked for environmental purposes and comes in the form of donations, loans, preferential credits and environmental protection subsidies. According to Art. 88e, a member of the Board of Trustees from each regional fund must be a representative of an ecological NGO nominated by the respective regional self-governmental Diet (Sejmik). According to Article 88h, each of the funds (including the National Fund) has to publish an annual financial report.
A comprehensive legislation on EIA has been prepared and is likely to be adopted shortly. This will either be in the form of a separate act or later as part of a new "omnibus" environmental act which is expected to be completed within a year. New EIA draft legislation provides very broad public participation rights, including the involvement of the public at the screening stage, and then scoping and hearing on the final EIA report.
The rules of the "general administrative procedure" apply to all environmental permit/licensing proceedings. Neither of the relevant laws provides for the specific right to know or other participation provisions that would supplement or alter those participation rights covered in the 1960 Code for the "general administrative procedure". Licensing/permit proceedings are usually "cabinet" ones. Only in the case of water pollution permits (a permit for discharge of effluents) does the Water Law Act of 1974 require a hearing prior to the granting of a permit. This is similar to other administrative decisions under this law.
There is no separate law on the use of energy. The government officially declares its intention to cooperate with NGOs on the issue but, in practice, this does not seem to happen. The Atomic Law of 1986 does not have any specific public participation provisions. Since Poland officially abolished its plans to develop the nuclear energy sector, this issue does not seem to be topical for ecological NGOs recently.
The Land Use Act of 1994 provides broad participation rights and introduces Strategic EIA to planning procedures. Art.18 regulates these rights in the planning process. The public must first be informed - e.g. by announcement in the local press - of the initiation of planning process and may give recommendations. Then the draft plan should be prepared, consulted and displayed publicly, together with the EIA statement concerning the likely impact of the plan proposals. There are 21 public comment and notice periods. The public must be informed and the draft displayed at least seven days in advance. Unacceptable submissions must be answered in writing and reasons for refusal explained. Local plans may be challenged at the administrative court. Local plans are the basis in which planning permission is granted. This procedure follows the rules as already described in the 1960 Administrative Procedure Code and Article 100:2 and 3 of EPA 1980 on informing ecological NGOs. The Act supplements these rules with the requirement that, in the case of non-binding local plan, planning permission may be granted only after a hearing and the general public having been informed. Actually, public participation in practice is the strongest in the planning procedure. Most legal cases concern planning permissions because of the above mentioned special procedural rules for notifying environmental NGOs in relation to this procedure. Moreover, this is the most important procedure for ecological reasons as well, and at this stage EIA is performed.
The Building Act of 1994 covers various permits depending on the kind of project and the stage of its design. Approval of the technical design of the project and construction permit may be subject to joint proceedings. To ensure that the environmental provisions of the 1994 Act are being complied with, the Environmental Protection Act of 1980 requires that the technical design of any project which may cause harm to the environment must be subject to EIA and needs to be approved by the governor. Moreover, Art.5 declares that it is the duty of those designing, constructing and maintaining buildings to protect the legitimate interests of third persons likely to be affected. This includes protection against any inconveniences caused by noise, vibration or pollution of air, water or soil. The rules of the "general administrative procedure" apply to all permit proceedings under the 1994 Act. However, unlike the Building Law Act of 1974, the 1994 Act does not include the right to know and the right to be heard in relation to persons whose legitimate interests might be affected by the activity in question.
The Privatization of State-owned Enterprises Act of 1990 lacks any explicit environmental considerations. There has been much controversy over the absence of any public relations policy regarding sale deals with foreign investors: in particular, treating respective environmental audits and their impact on sale deals as confidential. In 1993, the MoE and the Ministry of Ownership Changes created a special Inter-Ministerial Committee to handle environmental issues related to privatization. The Committee prepared guidelines concerning special environmental audits for privatization purposes which allow for public participation in the auditing scheme. However, in most cases, the public is not involved in the concrete privatization deals. The new set of laws related to the social pact between the Government and the trade unions (the already mentioned Pact on the State-owned Enterprise of 1993) is expected to bring about new legal possibilities for public involvement in the privatization process.
The Press Law Act of 1984 declares that it is the press - i.e. all media serving mass communication - which carries into effect the citizens' right to information and to participate in public affairs. According to the act, all authorities, state-owned enterprises and other state units are bound to disclose information concerning their activities to the press. Included in this category are private companies, trade unions and other associations. Exempted from disclosure, according to Art.4:2, is information protected under the State and Official Secrets Act of 1982 or protected under other statutes - e.g. medical files. Upon request, a refusal must be supplied in written form within three days. A refusal may be challenged at the administrative court (Art.4:4).
Art.61:3 of the Civil Procedure Code enables some associations to participate and support the plaintiff in some cases. The regulations of the Justice Minister of 1991 also lists amongst these associations ecological NGOs which are allowed to support plaintiffs in lawsuits against polluters. As far as the Criminal Code is concerned, criminal violations of environmental laws can take the form of petty offenses (punishable by a fine or custody of up to three months) or offenses (punishable by a fine and imprisonment of up to 15 years). Only individuals, not legal persons, may be held criminally liable. The procedures regarding offenses and petty offenses differ. In relation to environmental cases only the latter one provides for citizens' enforcement. The sanctions for petty offenses are imposed by quasi-judicial bodies (equivalent to magistrates, with lay-judges and a clerk) functioning through the courts. Anyone has the right to initiate proceedings, but only injured persons and persons acting as public prosecutors may actively participate. The Petty Offenses Procedure Code of 1971 authorizes some associations (including some ecological ones - e.g. the Nature Protection Guard) to act as public prosecutor in "environmental" cases.
All these institutions were designed to follow the model of the Nature Protection Guard which proved to be successful in providing citizens' involvement in monitoring compliance and enforcement of nature conservation legislation. In the case of pollution control, however, this model has not had much chance to prove itself. The provisions concerning civic pollution control watchdogs remain mainly a dead letter of law, partially because the Council of Ministers has not issued respective regulations, as provided for under Art.103. A high number of enforcement actions result from citizens' notices or complaints.
The State Environmental Protection Inspectorate is exclusively responsible for administrative sanctions. Sanctions are imposed according to the "general administrative procedure". Art.31:1 of the 1960 Code in conjunction with Art.100:1 of the EPA 1980 apply respectively, which means ecological associations may initiate and participate in enforcement proceedings and seek the review of the administrative court. Environmental associations rarely use civil lawsuits because they are more complicated, much more expensive and, since professional legal assistance is required (see above remarks about administrative court and problem of costs) it takes much longer to reach a verdict.
However, there are examples of successful court cases. The biggest success of NGOs using civil court was a case in Lodz where in 1989 an association called "Trzezwosc I Praca" filed a lawsuit based on Art.100 against the municipal transport company (MPK) for pollution caused by buses. The MPK lawyers argued that buses were produced without filters for combustion gases and therefore MPK should not be held liable for pollution. The court ordered the municipal office and traffic police to examine a possibility of introducing filters controlling combustion gases in buses. The result of the examination was positive. The court asked also the car manufacturing plant about the possibility of producing such filters. The plant affirmed the possibility of producing such filters. In the verdict, the court ordered MPK to introduce filters to their buses. The appeal of MPK was refused by the Supreme Court. The success, to a large extent, can be attributed to the fact that the case was run by a professional barrister who, at the time, specialized in environmental matters and pro bono activity.
Environmental NGOs have a much weaker position, in terms of resources, its public face and government recognition. Nevertheless, the ecological community has recently developed immensely, mainly due to various foreign initiatives and support. There are a number of organizations providing support for grassroot NGOs - e.g. the Service Office for Ecological Movement in Warsaw (SOEM), Foundations for the Support of Environmental Initiatives in Krakow and the Information Service on Ecological Law of the Polish Environmental Law Association in Wroclaw. Creation of closer structures for cooperation seems to continue failing. The most important forum is the annual meeting of environmental NGOs. There is hope that an e-mail network just being created may bring new impetus to cooperation.
Parliament seems to be less involved in non-formal public participation practices in the environmental field than the government. Public participation here concerns only certain major areas subject to law drafting or parliamentary scrutiny, such as environmental strategy. These include commissioning reports, appraisals and draft laws from NGOs (a report on Pollution Prevention by NGO experts has recently been commissioned - editor, P.Gluszynski). The "green lobbyist" was provided with access to the parliament and to all meetings of the Parliamentary Special Committee on the Constitution (even though, in principle, they are not always open to the public). Recently, a group of MPs consulted some NGOs as to whether a government list of activities subject to EIA was appropriate.
Regional government administration (there are no elected bodies here) seems to be slightly less involved in non-formal public participation, perhaps as a result of grassroot organizations being primarily concerned with local issues while larger NGOs tend to act centrally. Moreover, most public participation practices concern controversial issues where mostly policy (not technical) decisions are taken. These decisions are being decided at local level - e.g. development consents. Decisions at a more central level - i.e. legislation, regulations, problems of strategic importance, etc. - are more of a technical nature and require specific knowledge and financial resources and do not attract enough public attention to induce public participation on a regular basis. Non-formal practices at regional level include a telephone "hotline" which allow citizens to report on unauthorized releases of pollutants or catastrophes. The number is included in the local press amongst other emergency numbers such as the police. Meetings have also been arranged to fix the scope of EIA in Szczecin and, in Wroclaw, meetings have been organized to present the results of audits.
Public participation at local level is rather natural because local authorities have a character of self-government and are supposed to involve the public in its works. Besides, at local level, matters of immediate importance and relevance are decided and these are very much subject to public participation - i.e. development plans and consent and local nature conservation issues. Public participation practices at the local level have a rather ad hoc nature; there is a lot of activity when there is a controversial issue and not much happens on a routine basis. The most frequently used tools initiated at local level include involving NGO experts at committee level and supporting local educational initiatives.
Attempts to establish a "green labeling" scheme proved unsuccessful, as did protests against the construction of a new TV transmitter in Konstantynow (a special act of parliament was issued to allow for this development). A campaign to extend the boundaries of the Bialowieza National Park to include the entire surrounding pristine forest proved fruitless, although some sort of compromise seems likely. Failures are largely due to the fact that the whole movement in Poland is at too early a stage of development for this and, structurally, the ecological movement is too weak and divided internally to achieve its goals at this stage.
Since 1989, the environmental NGO community has expanded significantly due to democratization, free media and a better understanding of environmental issues, but the most immediate reason seems to be that there is a great deal of training, expertise and available funds from Western governments, development aid institutions and public interest foundations.
The unsuccessful attempt to organize a referendum concerning the Zarnowiec Nuclear Power Plant showed not only the deficit of an existing legal framework (because the law does not grant the public the right to petition for referendum), but also revealed that the public is ready and able to use even the most sophisticated legal avenues. Within the last two years there seems to have been substantial progress in recognizing the advantages of public participation and its role in civic society (by both governmental officers and NGOs) and the government officially supports the idea of public participation. The National Environmental Policy, a document adopted by parliament in 1991, includes amongst its basic principles: "the principle of active participation of citizens and public organizations, expressed by various forms of public inspection of environmental protection; the universal right to advance claims aimed at abandonment or limitation of actions against the environment; and the universal right of access to information about the state of the environment and the means of its protection".
Environmental NGOs have started to appreciate the importance of solving problems through legal channels (in October 1994 an article in Green Brigades relates the success of the Warsaw incinerator case achieved by using legal methods). There is also progress in using non-formal tools of public participation and NGOs have learned how to professionally gain support from the community, in terms of fundraising, media manipulation and high level negotiations.
Ecological NGOs and other public interest groups are also weakened due to a lack of financial resources, professional expertise and the inability to build public support. There is a certain reluctance on the part of the authorities to make the government transparent and accountable to the public, in particular to involve the public in permit proceedings related to sophisticated technical questions. Problems that should be the government's responsibility to solve are generally in the legal field - i.e. the lack of adequate public participation rights, insufficiently clear statutory provisions and detailed regulations which are coupled with vague procedures. In the non-formal field, the overall absence of negotiation skills and experience with public participation, plus a fear of abusing official secrets, is the greatest hindrance.
From the NGOs point of view, the legal field is also the greatest problem, with a lack of sufficient public participation provisions, access to information and the high cost of legal proceedings (there is no legal scheme to solve the question of costs involved in filing public interest lawsuits. It is generally felt that government officials are corrupt and thus the morale of scientific experts is poor). The existing legal framework of public participation can be said to be full of gaps, shortcomings and inconsistencies; all of which contribute to insufficient public involvement in environmental decisionmaking. Particular areas for concern are the lack of citizens' rights concerning access to government information and the lack of mandatory public participation in the law and rule-making.
There is an absence of sufficient networking and too much insufficient training in the field of public participation and general maladministration on the government's behalf. Financial problems are always a source of concern, as is the generally low ecological awareness and low level of civic involvement in public affairs. In the governmental field, officers are insufficiently trained and there is a general organizational maze and lack of functional order within administration. However, the NGOs position is weakened by their confrontational attitude and inability to reach a compromise.
Reforms in the legal field should include a law on legislative process, with clear and mandatory public comment and notice. The right to access to information is of primary importance, including access to self-reporting data submitted currently under the pollution charging scheme. Pollution permit registers need to be established and the inclusion of public participation as early as the screening stage of EIA actively encouraged. Where hazardous developments are concerned, the right to a public hearing is essential. In relation to the communication process, a list should be compiled of NGOs willing to be notified in writing about draft environmental laws/rules/plans and hazardous development projects, and provide legal aid for environmental cases.
In the non-formal field, government officials need to be educated in the field of public participation, while a policy allowing NGOs to receive funding from national and provincial environmental funds should be established. Regional and European cooperation in the legal field can include the adoption of the "Access to Justice" directive and support to the initiative for the European Environmental Tribunal. In the non-formal field, funding within the PHARE Program should be made available to support public participation, with long term grants for ongoing activities and projects such as establishing an e-mail network of public participation practitioners.