Gábor Baranyai Ministry of Environment and Water

1. The Role of Governments in the Implementation of Public Participation in Environmental Matters Gábor Baranyai Ministry of Environment and Water

2. I. The Hungarian context Formal legal framework • Wide range of international legal instruments • The 1998 Aarhus Convention • European Community law • Environmental impact assessment • Strategic environmental assessment • Participation in the drawing up of non SEA plans and programmes • Access to information • Application of the Aarhus Convention to the Community institutions • National legislation on access to information, to decision-making and to justice

3. II. What role do or should governments play? • “Classic” state functions • Adopt legislation • Maintain a system of authorities in charge of supervision/implementation • Enforce legislation

4. Pro-active approach • Actively promote participation (training, awareness raising) • Own institutions • Citizens • Non-governmental institutions • Maintain supporting infrastructure • Databases, electronic tools • Remove financial hurdles/provide financial support • Activities • NGOs • Conflict management • Mediation

5. III. Implementation of the Aarhus Convention in Hungary- a personal view - • Legislative context: a forerunner • easy establishment of NGOs • wide range of procedural rights • endless appeals • no filing fee, limited litigation costs

6. Administration/judiciary: the reluctant pupil • secretive administrative culture • less resources/more workload → increasing reluctance to handle more and more citizen/NGO requests • slow judiciary, huge backlog of cases

7. Political context • Then • the early years → wide political support to democratic participatory principles • “democratic passion” of the early 1990s (e.g. access to information, unlimited NGO standing) • accession to the European Union → political and legal obligation to transpose and play by the rules • pressure from society for fuller control of what goes on in the local environment • gradual “infiltration” of the Aarhus Convention in EU and local legal practice

8. and now • major political conflicts and endless legal battles over certain high profile infrastructure projects • significant delays • NGOs depicted as “obstructive”, “enemies of development” • Government depicted as “abusive”, “biased” and “tyrannical” • Investors depicted as “ruthless”, “greedy” and “corrupt” • Responses • Issue → decision-making too slow • Response → reduce participatory rights rather than improve decision-making • More action by NGOs • Result: BATTLEFIELD → everyone is suspicious of the other

9. IV. Reconciliation: how to undo the deadlock • The Government’s role: a policy of modest steps • How to improve the situation substantially with limited resources • An honest analysis of the situation • Improve the operation of the authorities at national, regional level • Training • Guidance documents on best practices • More involvement of society of all levels → policy of engagement • NGO suspicion often roots in lack of information or false information • Good examples: National Council on the Environment, EU decision-making • A better presentation of existing data, better of use of IT

10. NGO’s role • Give up conspiracy theories → civil servants are not crooked frontmen of investors neither puppets of politicians (or not necessarily) • Be professional and prepared → failed actions are a waste of time and money and bring NGOs bad fame • Game theory → cooperation pays off better than confrontation