1 / 33

Mara Silina

Building NGO capacity and strenghtening civil society. Mara Silina European Environmental Bureau (EEB) & European ECO Forum * * * Geneva , 25 October 2010. What I would like to cover are. 1. European ECO Forum’s and EEB work with civil society 2. Few lessons learned

lavinia-peterson
Download Presentation

Mara Silina

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Building NGO capacity and strenghtening civil society Mara Silina European Environmental Bureau (EEB) & European ECO Forum* * *Geneva, 25 October 2010

  2. What I would like to cover are 1. European ECO Forum’s and EEB work with civil society 2. Few lessons learned 3. Some general recommendations

  3. European Environmental Bureau/EEB EEB was established in 1974 torepresent ENGOs’ interests vis-à-vis the EU InstitutionsIt is a federation of more than 140 environmental citizens organisations based in almost all EU Member States, potential new Member States and a few neighbouring countries. 3 3

  4. EEB and European ECO Forum • European Environmental Bureau (EEB) - One of the Aarhus Convention’s leading organizations • The EEB works in the framework of the European ECO Forum, a coalition of more than 200 Environmental Citizens’ Organisations from the UNECE region, created in 1993 to follow up on the UN Environment for Europe process 4

  5. European ECO Forum – Public Participation Campaign • Environmental organisations throughout the pan-European region working together in Public Participation Campaign (PPC) of the European ECO Forum to follow implementation, development and use of the Aarhus Convention 5

  6. Role of NGOs in THE AARHUS CONVENTION • 1993: involved in drafting “Sofia Guidelines” • 1995: Environmental NGOs key role in decision to draft the Convention, and intensively involved. • From 1998 successful pressure for Protocols on PRTRs, Strategic Environmental Decision-making, GMO clarification/amendment, Open Compliance process, Almaty Guidelines,process to clarify and improve public participation requirements for plans, programmes, policies and legislation 6

  7. European ECO Forum Activities Main areas of activity:Meaningful participation at official meetings (eight to ten per year) General co-ordination of campaign Issue specific work: SEA Protocol, PRTR Protocol, GMOs, Access to Justice, Electronic Information Tools support national activities, encourage information exchange and fundraising Capacity building Use of the Compliance mechanism Tools:newsletter and website « Participate », list servers, publications, networking, training on compliance mechanism etc. 7

  8. European ECO Forum Activities Capacity building in individual countries – Kazakhstan, FYRoMacedonia, Kosovo and Armenia – mainly for NGOs but not only. Local language and linking to the issues which are important to the local organisations Compliance mechanism (NGO focal points, training, publication of the Case Law etc.) – mixed participants, not only for lawyers. Three trainings until now in paralel to the ACCC meetings 8 8

  9. Assessment of National Implementation Reports PAN-EUROPEAN SURVEY ON IMPLEMENTATION Presented at Meeting of Parties 2008 • Involved 24 countries (15 EU) • Was response to National Implementation Reports by governments • Covered process (drafting Reports) and state of implementation (content). • Remarkable involvement noticed of NGOs in reporting in new democracies: In Armenia, Czech Rep., Kyrgystan and Poland NGOs in fact wrote the report for the Party [was also offered to NGOs in Kazakhstan and Moldova, but they refused] 9

  10. PAN-EUROPEAN SURVEY - SOME MAIN CONCLUSIONS: • Some countries (= in new democracies) rely too much on direct applicability of the Convention: so no or insufficient national provisions and actions. • Too much focus on formal transposition, too little on institutional arrangements; clear requirements, standards, guidance, publicity. • Public Participation pillar is overall the weakest: people are not been taken serious! Also “national interests” used too often as excuse. Local implementation very poor. 10

  11. Another Example: Spanish compliance case CITIZENS OF MURCIA WIN COMPLIANCE BATTLE OVER CONSTRUCTION PROJECT(case 2008/24) • Spanish NGO Association AJA submits communication to the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee (2008) on non-compliance by Spain with all three pillars of the Convention • Case concerns urbanisation project in Murcia (re-clasification of lands to enable construction of houses) where decision to re-clasify the lands was taken without taking into account the EIA and based on false grounds (low agricultural and environmental value) 11

  12. Spanish case • Compliance Committee took its decision in December 2009 and findings were published in January 2010. They found Spain in non-compliance with all three pillars of the Convention. • This was a big victory and citizens were satisfied especially that some far away institutions (Compliance Committee) rather than their own government were listening to their claims for environmental democracy Also, for the first time there were no public consultations opened in the region in August this year which usually was a practice by authorities. ISN’T THAT GREAT!!! 12

  13. Now a few words about activities of the European Environmental Bureau/EEB 13 13

  14. European Environmental Bureau/EEB Our mission statement: EEB is the environmental voice of European citizens, standing for environmental justice, sustainable development and participatory democracy. We want the EU to ensure all people a healthy environment and rich biodiversity. 14 14

  15. European Environmental Bureau/EEB Activities focussed on the EU Environmental Policy but not only That includes specific policy areas : * Agriculture * Air Pollution * Biodiversity * Chemicals * Ecolabel * Ecological Product Policy * Energy Efficiency * Environmental Fiscal reform * Industry-IPPC * Nanotechnology * Natural Resources * Noise * Soil * Waste * Water * Zero mercury campaign 15 15

  16. Horizontal issues: Environmental Policy Integration Sustainable Development Aarhus Convention (UN Convention) Access to information, public participation, access to the Court Access to Information Transparency Good Governance Participatory Democracy Enforcement Environmental Fiscal Reform 16 16

  17. Treaty Revisions – Constitution >Lisbon Treaty Environmental Impact Assessment –EIA Strategic Environmental Assessment – SEA Environmental Liability Directive etc. 17 17

  18. EEB The EEB in the EU net National Governments & Parliaments Members Industry E.U. Institutions: Commission, EP, Council The Public Media Other Organisations: Social, Consumer, Trade Unions, …

  19. Enforcement of the legislation– civil society has a role to play EU institutions Member States Civil society

  20. Capacity building/strengthening… Working with EU presidencies – every 6 months Enlargement project – 1998 -2004 and now Pinochio project - Slovenia Survey on implementation of the EU Aarhus related Directives EU consultations 20 20

  21. Capacity building/strengthening… Working with EU presidencies – every 6 months Work with both Governments and NGOs Preparing 10 Tests for each presidency Meetings with Ministry of Environment Memorandum to the Presidency Evaluation 21 21

  22. Capacity building/strengthening… Enlargement project – 2004 and now Contacts with all interested in the process, both in the EU and individual countries Information, information, information Training workshops High level meetings with negotiators etc. Some improvements now comparing with 2004 but not always (ex. Croatia) 22 22

  23. Example: Capacity building/strengthening… Pinochio project in Slovenia: In 2000 – the green monitor project started Phase 1 –evaluate pre-election programmes of different parties from the aspect of environment, nature and sustainable development =result – insufficiently Phase 2 – 64 indicators were prepared by NGOs for evaluating of governememnts efficiency concerning the environment protection, nature and SD. Quarterly rreports – overall efficiency 20% max Phase 3 – evaluation of gov work in 15 fields INSUFFICIENCY of the Government was considerable 23 23

  24. Capacity building/strengthening… Survey on implementation of the EU Aarhus related Directives Two surveys – in 2007 and 2010 for 27 EU memberstates Done based on input from the environmental NGOs To be finalised later this year 24 24

  25. Public Participation – few conclusions the requirement ‘to be informed early’ has been breached several times ‘early and effective public participation’ is not ensured in certain countries the outcome of the public participation procedures and consultations have not got any or rather weak impact on the final decision In many cases the main difficulty is the restricted use of the concept of “public concerned” to identify who can participate in environmental proceedings, for example by excluding informal groups 25

  26. Public Participation – few conclusions High costs, insufficient time, hardly any promotion of the opportunities for public participation Tendency to reduce public participation in Germany and the Netherlands but not only Sometimes, consideration of comments received through public participation process is considered not more than formality Too limited right of standing to when public participation rights are violated in several countries 26

  27. What to do: 1. Online availability of the related information should be extended: awareness of authorities, in particularmunicipalities’ officers could be enhanced public bodies could be more pro-active in capacity building by publishing information on their website 2. the system of public notices and the disclosure of the decisons needs to be revised: certain good practices related to this issue have been enacted recently on the level of the Member States the information must be provided where, when and how the draft can be commented 3. requirement ‘early public participation in decision making process’ should be amended: legislative amendments would be required as the recent practice is diverse from country to country amendments on EU level would express that this issue is of high importance 27

  28. What to do: 4. Establish safeguards to ensure public authorities take substantive account of public comments when making decisions: public opinion has no or rather weak impact on official decision-making while formal bureaucratic approach still got a major role institutionalized feedback report with reasons for inclusion or non-inclusion of specific comments could enhance the awareness of the public bodies 5. Avoid the use of ‘acceleration of the planning processes’ as an argument: exclusion of ‘Aarhus rights’ by formal legislative steps should be avoided even the actual national priorities seems to be more important than the long-term environmental interests adaptation of Aarhus rules and requirements should be as broad as possible 28

  29. Lessons learned: Building capacity/strengthening civil society is not a work only for NGOs or international organisations Cooperation between different partners – crucial Public participation is a long process, needs a good preparation Recognition of the input - crucial Language is important Different tools for communication – internet alone cannot help 29

  30. Some general recommendations Support and capacity building should become a common task for both public authorities and NGOs which also needs resources; Trainings and capacity building for officials and citizens Awareness-raising and trainings in effective use of public participation rights Establish safeguard mechanism to ensure public authorities take public comments into account substantively when making decisions Require information to be made available within reasonable time frames to allow public sufficient time to become informed and to prepare and participate effectively 30 30

  31. Some general recommendations Require information to be made available within reasonable time frames to allow public sufficient time to become informed and to prepare and participate effectively Require more proactive measures to inform public, e.g. by electronic means, of opportunity to participate Make notice procedures more citizen-friendly Assert right of ad hoc groups to participation 31 31

  32. And at the end Principle 10 Rio Declaration Environmental issues are best handled with participation of all concerned citizens, at the relevant level. At the national level, each individual shall have appropriate access to information concerning the environment that is held by public authorities, including information on hazardous materials and activities in their communities, and the opportunity to participate in decision-making processes. States shall facilitate and encourage public awareness and participation by making information widely available. Effective access to judicial and administrative proceedings, including redress and remedy, shall be provided. 32

  33. Thank you! Please contact us: mara.silina@eeb.org Tel.: +32 2 289 10 90 Fax: +32 2 289 10 99 http://www.eeb.org http://www.participate.org 33

More Related