REC Serbia and Montenegro Office, Primorska 31, 11000, Belgrade

Connecting Networks, 8-10 June 2005

REC Serbia and Montenegro Office, Primorska 31, 11000, Belgrade

‘Belgrade’ Statement, 10 June, 2005

on progress and priorities for environmental information management,
exchange and public access in South Eastern Europe

Environmental information professionals representing three REReP (Regional Environmental Construction Programme) networks: National Environmental Information Systems; Regional Environmental Press Centre and Balkan Bytes: Electronic NGO Networks gathered 8-10 June 2005 in Belgrade, Serbia and Montenegro. They met to discuss progress in environmental information access in South Eastern Europe (SEE) countries/territories, update priorities for possible future phases of the networks and build capacity in Geographic Information Systems (GIS).

The participants welcomed the meeting as an opportunity to exchange information, views and experience on the current status and needs in environmental information access in SEE, and discuss future activities. They also warmly welcomed “GREENWARE: LOW-COST SOFTWARE ALTERNATIVES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION MANAGEMENT” (software inventory) and the training offered by Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI) on GIS as useful means for further developing environmental information systems.

Meetings of the three networks were held and each tackled a set list of critical questions and produced a written statement for their sector, annexed to this document (see Annexes 2-4). The questions helped to map legal progress, institutional development, Information and Communication Technology (ICT) capacity & know-how, environmental reporting and public access, multi-stakeholder cooperation, and resource availability across the SEE region. It also stimulated the identification of future network priorities.

The same questions were tackled by country/territory working groups, constituted by representatives of government, NGO and the media sector. The key findings of those discussions are portrayed in the table given in Annex 1. Future priorities were also mapped, as they emerged from the discussions.

It has been noted that many of the priorities correspond. Country/territory and network representatives subsequently agreed that the following priorities are to be considered the most important at the regional level:

·  Collaboration between state environment bodies, related aid-agencies and EU institutions involving NGOs wherever possible, in the approximation, implementation and enforcement of the EU environmental acquis in the information field;

·  Strengthen information exchange with the EEA and cross-border cooperation via EIONET/Reportnet; transfer expertise and know-how (including best practices) from EU/EEA member states;

·  Develop state agency capacity in environmental data management, modelling and public reporting; develop and harmonise meta-data sets; and report environmental data according to European standards;

·  Develop hardware and software ICT know-how of state environment bodies, local regional authorities and environmental NGOs, and hire skilled experts;

·  Improve the quality and usability of official environmental information (as opposed to environmental data) so as to be easily understandable by the general public;

·  Improve environmental reporting in the media, by building the capacity of journalists to report on environmental activities;

·  Foster the development of an NGO platform in SEE countries/territories relying on electronic NGO-Networks, to assure representation in key decision making processes.

Activities addressing these priorities will foster regional cooperation, civil society development, cross-border collaboration, and relations with the EEA. SEE countries and territories called for the mobilisation of resources for activities to address the above priorities.

Participants expressed their recognition to the Ministry of Spatial Planning, Housing and Environment of the Netherlands, the Italian Ministry for the Environment and Territory, and the Royal Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Norway for the support and assistance in enhancing national and regional environmental information access and supporting capacity building development in South Eastern European since 2000.

The REC is requested to facilitate a process of development of a range of project proposals that would address the highlighted priorities. This should be done in collaboration with the said REReP networks, and forwarded to the REReP Secretariat and Task Force, with a view to encouraging donor interest and financial support.

Participants congratulated the host Serbia and Montenegro and thanked the Regional Environmental Center for Central and Eastern Europe for organising this event.

*For more information please visit: http://www.rec.org/ConnectingNetworks/

Annex 1: Progress and Priorities in Environmental Information Management, Exchange Public Access

Progress* / Priorities*
Albania / ·  In 2003, 11 new sectoral laws were introduced that each reflect on environmental monitoring, access to information and public participation.
·  In 2005, new IT department was created with 2 staff which included an information center within the env. ministry dealing with data management and provisions.
·  One server for EEA data transmission, and EIONET program has provided training to MoE/Agriculture/Trans/Health for EEA data exchange. New equipment being purchased now under CARDS Programme for a new environmental info. Exchange network.
·  Info Center (3 persons), respond immediately to 2 requests per day. Quarterly magazine is published. Every 2 years an SoE report is produced. A website has been developed in Albanian.
·  Good collaboration between media, ministries and NGOs; project for the media on several different problems and how to report have resulted in regular media reporting.
·  Limited funds have been dedicated to increasing public access to information. / ·  Legal: Development of by-laws, and laws concerning EIS
·  Institutional development: Development of a database that is in-line with EU standards and is accessible by the public.
·  ICT capacity and know-how: To create a network between ministries and local government, and media and NGOs.
·  Reporting and public access: To publish environmental information in English on the web. To dedicate more funding to increasing environment reference information (e.g. terminology)
·  Multi-stakeholder cooperation: Training for NGOs and media in how to access and distribute env. Information to the general public.
·  Resource availability: Increase human and financial resources to build capacity in ministries, NGOs and media networks.
Bosnia-Herzegovina (based on NGO/Media input) / ·  Unbalanced process of registering NGOs at the entity-state level. In both entities law on environmental protection exists, and process of drafting sub-laws is underway. The Law on associations and foundations is established and is good, however, the main problem - NGOs in BiH have to pay all taxes like profitable organizations (VAT)
·  Ministries for the environment exist on entity, district and cantonal level
·  NGOs are well equipped and trained to use ICT’s, there is an established electronic NGO network, while ministries are well equipped but there is a lack of well educated staff
·  In Federation of BiH the reporting system is better than in RS; it is easier for journalists to obtain information than for NGOs, however, they often don’t ask for it!
·  NGOs coordinate the communication between civil society and donors, and there is improved communication between ministries thanks to the EU CARDS Programme. NGOs have emphasized some topics and made it more interesting to media
·  NGOs work more on gathering information and distribution by applying the Law for free access to information but ministries only comply partially. Instead of competing NGOs start working together / ·  Legal progress: Change the legal status of (non-profit) NGOs
·  Institutional development: Establish an entity/state Environmental Protection Agency
·  ICT capacity&know-how: Involve young ICT skilled people in ministries & offset ‘brain-drain’
·  Environmental reporting and public access: Establish an environmental monitoring and informational system
·  Multi-stakeholder cooperation: Create a pool of journalists to be regularly involved in NGOs’ activities
·  Resource availability: Collaboration between NGOs and GOs needs to be strengthened and institutionalised
Bulgaria / ·  Legal Progress: regulated by the Environmental Protection Act, art. 17 and Access to Information Act (AIA).
·  Institutional Development(s): New information centre at the Executive Environmental Agency (ExEA)
·  ICT Capacity & know-how: real time data for air quality and radiological situation available on web. Public server for data access.
·  Reporting & public access: Access through the website of (ExEA): env. meta-database catalogue, CHM mechanism, online GIS.
·  Multi-stakeholder cooperation: NGOs participate as observers in expert council and groups on various env. issues, involvement in different joint projects and plans.
·  Resource availability: improvement of the resource availability, still needs and gaps / · There needs to be effective implementation and enforcement of the existing legislation.
· Support and develop the existing resources of information and increase their public availability via ICT. Make GIS-based and spatial oriented data more broadly accessible among various environmental information resources
· Enhance cooperation between institutions and NGO networks to improve the quality of environmental data and its access.
· Capacity build to improve the professional performance of environmental journalists.
· Ensure on-time and adequate responses of government institutions to environmental information inquiries from NGOs and media. Ensure the pro-active dissemination of environmental information by the institutions.
· Guarantee a supply of financial and human resources to improve access to env. information.
Croatia (based on earlier Croat Env. Agency/NGO/ Media inputs) / ·  Decree on establishment of Environment Agency, June 2002, concerning environment monitoring & exchange of environmental data at inter/national level. Also a decree (2005) on env. metadata catalogue. 2003 law on access to information passed too.
·  New environment agency estab. Dec. 2002, collecting information in cooperation with many state bodies, 15 staff. However, env. management is handled through two sep. ministries (culture&env.prot), which places responsibility in wrong hands and MoC supervises nat.prot. inspectors! Also, env. epicenter is Zagreb, and there’s not enough attention to other parts of country.
·  Well-equipped with ICT
·  Improvements to environmental reporting and public access are visible! Website provides daily air qual. env. info and almost all key gov. env. projects have own websites. Other printed pubs regularly distributed. MoE Website incl. data on ongoing EIAs, plus leg&conv. (pdfs) but language of news is difficult to understand by layperson. County physical plans also online. However, responses to public requests are slow.
·  Cooperation exists with NGOs, and media (via official spokesperson) in making information available to public. But too few NGOs & independent experts are invited to comment or given enough time to attend debates on draft legislation and env. reports, and their opinions aren’t always reflected in the outcomes.
·  Limited financial support is given by the government, and the lack of human resources could impede improvements in env. inf. Access & quality. / ·  ICT capacity is good but technical know-how to maximize use of hardware/software resources could be much improved (e.g. alternative software could be utilized, web-publishing).
·  Rely on Croatian environmental press centre for example to build know-how of new Agency staff to provide info to the public in a more ‘popular’ way (e.g. EIA reports) as well as how to collaborate with NGOs in disseminating information.
·  Build capacity of Agency to fundraise independent of the government. Also, revenue from sale of env. reports at a symbolic price could be channeled into further reporting.
·  The old citizens forum (part of the old MoE info ctr) was a good virtual space for public promotion. The forum should be reestablished not only via the Internet, and also hosted by electronic NGO network(s) to assure a more decentralized approach to decisionmaking (as works with the MoEconomy).
·  The new Agency should strengthen its cooperation with env. related agencies (e.g. UNDP, REC), and NGOs (e.g. calling them to react on env. reports, draft decisions, programmes, plans, projects, even their info dissemination practices which could be decentralised!).
·  They need to be more in touch with remoter parts of the country and what occurs ‘in the field.’
·  Nat. Fund for Development of Civil Society could allocate more funds to env. NGOs
FYRo Macedonia / ·  Legal Progress: Aarhus convention -1998, law for environmental protection and law of water – in a parliamentary procedure; air, waste and biodiversity are already adopted by the parliament (creation of the sub legislation also started) in line with EU standards.
·  Institutional Development(s): PR Office under the Ministerial cabinet; New decentralisation policy - responsibilities under local authorities;
·  ICT Capacity & know-how: More sophisticated equipment, employment of new human recourses, Existence of NGO electronic network
·  Reporting & public access: monthly and yearly reports, www page, www portal, ngo`s www sites. Comments on drafts, access to some info (current air pollution)
·  Multi-stakeholder cooperation: There is some co-operation, which should be improved
·  Resource availability: Still Insufficient - dependence of international founds;
·  In the NGO sector more than 250 people are ICT educated / ·  Sucessful implementation of the new developed env.legislation – exchange of positive experience/good practices – practical examples should be shared (vis-à-vis the business sector, NGOs, media, gov`t.)
·  Broaden the scope of information made available to the public –authorities should be more transparent
·  Capacity building, and employment of ICT experts and env. protection engineers
·  Improve cooperation between NGOs and authorities, involve the NGOs in discussions of national and local commissions
·  Technical support is needed (human resource capacity building, plus technical equipment)
·  Joint trainings for govmt, NGO and media representatives – to foster inter alia the development of close relationships
Romania
(based on Gov. input only) / ·  Legal Progress: Legal environment almost in line with EU aquis
Law of Information regulates public access to information (2002)
·  Institutional Development(s): MoE and Water Mgmt. independent again (2004), 8 regional + every county has env’tl directorate (also related to bigger municipalities)
·  ICT Capacity & know-how: visible improvement in IT and know-how. But frequently staff changes.
·  Reporting & public access: significant improvement. Public access through mass-media, Internet.
·  Multi-stakeholder cooperation: NGO-Gov info exchange improved, few environmental journalists, media-gov’t coop. needs improvement (more accurate reporting).
·  Resource availability: Basic problem on all levels and stakeholders. Little improvement in past few years. / ·  Legal progress: Finish transposing the EU aquis and improve implementation.
·  Institutional Development(s): strengthen capacity of territorial env’tl directorates