PUBLIC CONSULTATION (Fourth layer) JAVNA RASPRAVA (Četvrti nivo) • 31 round tables in the cities that cover the population of over 5,000,000 inhabitants • 9,300 km traveled all over Serbia • 3,000 direct participants on round tables • Hundreds of contacts, impressions, personal stories, demands… Serbia and Yugoslavia need to have better future and environment in which our children could live • 31 tribina u mestima kojima gravitira oko 5.000.000 stanovnika • 9300 kilometara pređenog puta po Srbiji • 3000 direktnih učesnika na tribinama • Na stotine kontakata, utisaka, ličnih priča, komentara, zahteva… Srbiji i Jugoslaviji su potrebni bolja budućnost i okruženje u ko- jem će moći da žive i naša deca FOURTH LAYER CETVRTI NIVO cyan magen yellow black
One of the most important elements of the Programme was public participation in the drafting process, and that for several reasons. The very first one is related to the fact that we wanted to support gen- esis of contemporary legal document which was to be tailored against the citizens’ needs but conformed with international norms. Due to the European and global standards, public must be involved in the environmental matters, since legal regulation from this area affect all of us, directly (Aarhus Convention from 1998). Thus, at least what could have been done was to enable as wider number of indi- viduals, concerned groups, local authorities, experts’ organizations and NGOs as possible to bring their stands and comments. Jedan od najvažnijih elemenata programa bilo je uključenje javnos- ti u proces izrade Zakona, i to iz nekoliko razloga. Prvi leži u činjeni- ci da smo želeli da podržimo genezu savremenog pravnog akta koji je pravljen po meri građana, ali koji je usklađen sa međunarodnim nor- mama. Po evropskim i svetskim standardima, u pitanja životne sre- dine javnost mora biti uključena jer se odredbe pravnih propisa iz te oblasti najdirektnije dotiču svakog od nas (Arhuska konvencija iz 1998). Iz tog razloga, najmanje što se moglo učiniti jeste da se omo- gući što većem broju zainteresovanih grupa i pojedinaca, lokalnim upravama, struč- nim institucijama i nevladinim or- ganizacijama da daju svoje mišlje- nje i komentar. 50 FOURTH LAYER »ETVRTI NIVO cyan magen yellow black
Second, not less important reason was related to the need for pro- viding opportunity for choice to anyone interested, but with the clear message that choice presumes responsibility which eliminates defeatism or apathy: you may participate to the process or not, but this is up to you. If you take your stake, you have the right and obli- gation to defend, critically, your stands. In any case, one may not exclude himself from the process, claiming ineffectiveness, because this is also a choice which brings responsibility, as well. Public debate was this opportunity. Responses from participants were highly over expected. For the first time ever, so democratic and transparent drafting process was performed. This is the reason why results on compatibility of different approaches are so good and the draft itself comprises most of the delivered comments. Drugi, ne manje važan razlog bio je uslovljen potrebom da se da mogućnost izbora i pravo na sopstveni stav svakome ko je to želeo, ali sa jasnom porukom da izbor neminovno pretpostavlja odgovornost koja eliminiše defetistički stav ili potpunu apatiju: možete se uključi- ti u proces ili ne, ali je to Vaša odluka. Ukoliko se odlučite da budete deo procesa, imate pravo i obavezu da kritički branite svoj stav. U svakom slučaju, ne možete se isključiti i reći da Vas nije briga jer i to je izbor koji povlači odgovornost. Javna rasprava i tribine su bili mo- gućnost koja je pružena svima. Reakcije učesnika i rezultati rasprave bili su preko očekivanja. Po prvi put je sproveden proces izrade Zakona koji je u tolikoj meri bio javan i demokratski. Zato su i postignuti rezultati na usaglašenosti različitih pristupa izuzetno dobri, a sam Nacrt zakona u sebi sadrži najveći broj dostavljenih primedbi. 51 FOURTH LAYER »ETVRTI NIVO cyan magen yellow black
Public consultation process started as early as in December 2001, but the round tables and debates took places from January 9, until February 18, 2002. In addition to that, all of the 160 local authori- ties received draft on commenting, which a number of them did. In parallel with the Round Tables, a number of meetings with business sector, companies and experts’ institutions, substantially interested in Law, were conveyed. After finalization of this part of the Programme, comments were collected, analyzed and built in the final Draft that has been deliv- ered to the Government of the Republic of Serbia. Government has accepted the draft and send it, on June 5, 2002, as official Proposal, to the Parliament of Republic of Serbia for adoption. Javna rasprava, odnosno proces komentarisanja Nacrta zakona počeo je već decembra meseca 2001. godine, ali su same tribine održavane u periodu od 9. januara do 18. februara 2002. godine. Osim toga, svih 160 opština u Srbiji dobilo je nacrt i veliki broj njih je dostavio svoje mišljenje. Istovremeno sa tribinama, održavani su posebni susreti sa privrednicima i stručnim institucijama koje su bile suštinski zainteresovane za Zakon. Po završetku ovog dela programa, komentari su prikupljeni, anali- zirani i ugrađeni u završnu verziju, odnosno Predlog Zakona koji je predat Vladi Republike Srbije. Vlada je Zakon prihvatila i 5. juna 2002. godine prosledila ga Skupštini Republike Srbije na usvajanje. 52 FOURTH LAYER CETVRTI NIVO cyan magen yellow black
LOBBYING (Fifth layer) Lobbying is an expresion that is often used for infor- mal obtaining support to initiatives with decision makers. Informal means that it is happening out of the institutions, figuratively, in the corridors and lobbies. That is where the name »lobbying« comes from. Lobbying is exercised in practice whenever it is nec- essary to obtain under- standing and support of, frequently rather heteroge- neous group that deliver decisions (MPs, members of various boards, etc.). Lobbying is very complex technique which should take into account diversity of approaches to the particular issue and, there- fore, promotion of the initiative to be presented, must be very care- fully prepared. Lobbying is, in some countries of developed democra- cy, rather standard practice (in USA, for example), exercised by lobby groups or influential MPs. What OSCE wanted to achieve through its Programme was to enable to all the participants in the process the best possible infor- mation and opportunity for active contribution. Laws of Republic of Serbia are adopted in the Parliament, thus it was of the utmost importance to introduce the draft of the Law to the MPs, the concept of the further development of the environmental legislation and insti- tution building in Serbia (FRY), impact to and of the international processes and effect to the overall public awareness and public sup- port. Apart from sporadic abuses in the sense of pressures to deci- sion makers, what cannot be considered as lobbying itself, a lobby- ing, as consistent activity, was not known in FRY. Lobbying was taken more as forcing someone's stand than constructive explanation on needs for support to some particular initiative attached with full jus- tification. From that reason, we considered this layer of the Programme extremely important for the explanation of the very Draft but also for obtaining the full transparency in the legislative process. During February 2002, we organized four sessions with Serbian MPs: I with opposition parties, II with one block of ruling coalition, III second block of ruling coalition an IV with Environmental and with Legislative committees. We had no intention to influence decision, that is discrete right of each and any elected parliamentarian, but to brief them in details on issue that they will take decision over. Presentation of the Law before the MPs met with high level of under- standing and support from all the groups. Constructive comments, received during those sessions, have been taken into consideration when final Bill of Law was prepared. LOBIRANJE (Peti nivo) Lobiranje je izraz koji se najčešće koristi za neformalno obezbeđivanje podrške inicijativama kod do- nosilaca odluka. Otuda i dolazi sam naziv »lobiranje«, jer je proces neformalan i odvija se van instituci- ja, odnosno, slikovito, u hodnicima i predvorjima (lobijima). Lobiranje se u praksi dešava kada je potrebno obezbediti razumevanje i podršku, često heterogene grupe koja donosi odluku (poslanici u skupštini, čla- novi raznih odbora, itd.), iz čega proističe da je lobiranje složena teh- nika koja mora uzeti u obzir razli- čitost pristupa jednom istom pitanju te se promovisanje određene ini- cijative mora pažljivo pripremiti. Lobiranje je u nekim zemljama raz- vijene demokratije vrlo uobičajena praksa (SAD, na primer), gde se ovim poslom bave grupe za lobiranje ili uticajni članovi parlamenta. Ono što je OEBS želeo da postigne svojim Programom bilo je da svi učesnici budu što bolje informisani o samom procesu i da u njega budu aktivno uključeni. Zakone Republike Srbije usvaja Skupština i zato je bilo od ključnog značaja da se poslanici upoznaju sa predlo- gom Zakona, sa konceptom razvoja ekološkog prava i institucija u Srbiji (SRJ), efektima ovakvog pristupa na međunarodne procese, ali i na svest građana te na njihovu podršku. Lobiranje, kao osmišljena aktivnost, nije poznato u SRJ, osim ako izuzmemo razne vrste zloupo- treba u vidu pritisaka koje se ponekad vrše na donosioce odluka i koje se ne mogu smatrati lobiranjem, te zbog kojih sam proces ima neretko negativnu konotaciju. Naime, lobiranje se ovde tumači kao prisila a ne kao konstruktivno objašnjenje o potrebi podrške određe- noj inicijativi uz obrazloženje njene opravdanosti. Iz tog razloga sma- trali smo da je ovaj deo programa izuzetno važan, kako za objašnje- nje samog Zakona tako i za uvođenje preglednosti u proces njegove izrade i usvajanja. U toku februara meseca 2002. godine održana su četiri sastanka sa poslanicima i poslaničkim grupama Skupštine Republike Srbije: I grupa sa opozicionim predstavnicima, II grupa sa jednim blokom stranaka na vlasti, III grupa sa drugim blokom stranaka na vlasti i IV grupa sa skupštinskim Odborom za zaštitu životne sredine i sa Zako- nodavnim odborom. Ovim pristupom nismo želeli da utičemo na samu odluku, koja je diskreciono pravo svakog izabranog poslanika, već da ih detaljno upoznamo sa materijom o kojoj će kasnije glasati kako bi o njoj prethodno i pravovremeno mogli da donesu svoj sud. Predstavljanje Zakona poslanicima Skupštine naišlo je na veoma visok stepen razumevanja i podrške. Konstruktivni predlozi izmena i dopuna sa ovih sastanaka uključeni su u Predlog zakona. 53 FIFTH LAYER PETI NIVO cyan magen yellow black
Evaluation of the OSCE Awareness Campaign: POLLUTION REQUIRES SOLUTION (Extract from the CPA Study) The evaluation was performed in 16 Serbian cities and towns, i.e. in every other town of those on which the campaign was focused, as well as in six additional towns where the campaign was not conducted – as the control sample. The research was conducted in 22 cities and towns in all. In the selection of cities and towns attention was given to the need for a balanced sample as well as the best possible cov- erage of Serbian territory. Four towns in Vojvodina were included – Su- botica, Novi Sad, Pančevo, Kikinda; four Belgrade boroughs - Zemun, Zvezdara, Stari Grad, Obrenovac; and eight towns and cities in Central Serbia - Valjevo, Čačak, Novi Pazar, Bor, Niš, Pirot, Vranje and Kragu- jevac. Control survey was conducted in two towns in Vojvodina (Bačka Topola and Vrbas), two towns in Central Serbia (Gornji Milanovac i Prokuplje) and two Belgrade boroughs (Lazarevac and Voždovac). The campaign evaluation was conceived through summarizing of environmental activists' opinions, and, to a lower extent, activists that took part in the concrete realization of the campaign. Opinions were gathered through focus groups involving a total of 167 people, through depth interviews involving 12 citizens and through systemat- ic interviews involving 210 citizens. Roughly, slightly over 50% of the people taking part in focus groups were also surveyed, whereas the remaining part of the sample comprised randomly selected members of the general public. In each town or city 7-15 people were consult- ed, altogether 296 people (they either took part in focus groups or were polled, or both, and all people participating in depth interviews were also polled). Polled citizens sample description . 210 questionnaires were sta- tistically (SPSS) processed (a total of 224 citizens were polled, but 14 questionnaires were discarded as incomplete – individuals who would start filling in the questionnaire, but then stop it giving personal obli- gations as an excuse. Of all polled citizens, 138 participated in focus group work, and 72 were randomly selected members of the public (because we tried to avoid the saturation of the sample by eco- activists, by which the total evaluation would assume a character of a totally selected group). Polling was conducted through interviews (face to face) . Respondents' socio-demographic characteristics . Of 210 polled and interviewed citizens there were: • By sex: 40% women, 60% men; • By age: up to 30 there were 28%, from 30 to 40 years of age 23%, from 40 to 50 years of age 25% over 50 there were 24%; • By education: 2% with primary school education, 38% with sec- ondary education and 60% with college and university education; • By membership in environmental associations and organizations: 42% were members and 58% were not; • By socio-demographic units: 26% were from Vojvodina, 26% from Belgrade, and 48% from Central Serbia; • By sample type: 20% respondents were in the control sample, and 80% basic sample; Procena uspešnosti OSCE kampanje: ZAGAĐENJE ZAHTEVA REŠENJE (Izvodi iz studije Centra za proučavanje alternativa) Evaluacija je obavljena u 16 gradova Srbije, odnosno u svakom dru- 1 gom gradu od onih na koje je bila fokusirana kampanja, kao i u još šest gradova u kojima nije vođena kampanja – kao kontrolnom uzor- ku. Istraživanje je , dakle, obavljeno u ukupno 22 grada . Pri izboru gradova vodilo se računa da uzorak bude uravnotežen i Srbija pokri- vena što je moguće bolje. U Vojvodini u uzorak su ušla četiri grada - Subotica, Novi Sad, Pančevo, Kikinda; potom četiri beogradske opšti- ne - Zemun, Zvezdara, Stari Grad, Obrenovac; i osam gradova u cen- tralnoj Srbiji - Valjevo, Čačak, Novi Pazar, Bor, Niš, Pirot, Vranje i Kra- gujevac. Kontrolno istraživanje je obavljeno u dva grada u Vojvodini (Bačka Topola i Vrbas), dva grada u centralnoj Srbiji (Gornji Milano- vac i Prokuplje) i u dve beogradske opštine (Lazarevac i Voždovac). Realizacija evaluacije kampanje zamišljena je kroz sumiranje mišljenja eko-aktivista, a u manjem broju i aktivista koji su se bavili konkretnom realizacijom kampanje. Prikupljanje mišljenja obavljeno je putem fokus-grupa u koje je uključeno ukupno 167 građana, putem dubinskog intervjua kojim je obuhvaćeno 12 građana i putem sistematskog intervjua kojim je obuhvaćeno 210 građana. Okvirno, nešto više od polovine građana koji su učestvovali u radu fokus-grupa bilo je i anketirano, dok su drugi deo uzorka činili slučajno odabrani građani. U svakom gradu je konsultovano 7-15 ljudi, a ukupno 296 ljudi (oni su ili učestvovali u radu fokus-grupa ili su bili anketirani, ili i u fokus-grupama i anketirani, a svi koji su bili dubinski intervjuisani bili su i anketirani). Opis uzorka anketiranih građana. U završnu statističku obradu (SPSS) ušlo je 210 upitnika (anketirano je ukupno 224 građana, ali je 14 upitnika odbačeno zato što su bili nepotpuni – reč je o poje- dincima koji su započeli sa popunjavanjem upitnika, a onda prekidali pravdajući to svojim obavezama). Od anketiranih građana, 138 je učestvovalo u radu fokus-grupa, a 72 su slučajno odabrani građani (jer smo nastojali da izbegnemo zasićenost uzorka eko-aktivistima čime bi cela evaluacija poprimila karakter potpuno selekcionisane grupe). Upitnik sa ovim građanima realizovan je putem intervjua (face-face) . Socio-demografska obeležja ispitanika. Među 210 anketiranim i intervjuisanih građana bilo je: • po polu: 40 % žena, a 60 % muškaraca; • po starosti: do 30 godina bilo je 28 %, od 30 do 40 godina 23 %, od 40 do 50 godina 25 % i starijih od 50 godina bilo je 24 %; • po školskoj spremi: 2 % sa osnovnom školom, 38 % sa srednjom školom i 60 % sa višom ili visokom školskom spremom; • po članstvu u ekološkim udruženjima i organizacijama: 42 % ispi- tanika bilo je u članstvu, a 58 % nije; • po socio-demografskim celinama: 26 % ispitanika bilo je iz Voj- vodine, 26 % iz Beograda, a 48 % iz centralne Srbije; • po tipu uzorka: 20 % ispitanika bilo je u kontrolnom uzorku, a 80 % u osnovnom uzorku. 54 Evaluaciju su realizovali: Srećko Mihailović, sociolog (rukovodilac istraživačkog tima), Ljubomir Jurić, sociolog i Dejan Ćirić, inženjer mašinstva (obrada podataka). Evaluation performed by: Srećko Mihailović, sociologist (research team leader), Ljubomir Jurić, sociologist and Dejan Ćirić (data management). EVALUATION PROCENA cyan magen yellow black
OPINION ON THE ECO-CAMPAIGN »POLLUTION REQUIRES SOLUTION« Did you notice the campaign »Pollution Requires Solution« organized by OSCE? (in %) Approximately two thirds of respondents noticed the campaign, one third did not. In Central Serbia the ratio is 67 % to 33 %, in Vojvodina 61 % to 39 %, and the lowest is in Belgrade 58 % to 42 %. The data in towns and cities where the campaign was conducted – 71 % of respondents noticed it, 29 % did not - differs from the towns and cities where the campaign was not conducted, 35 % noticed it and 65 % did not. A very important thing should be noted here. The campaign was also seen in those towns where it was not conducted, to a much more limited extent, but still, it was seen. Actually, a part of the campaign could have been seen by all citizens – the part, that is, that was real- ized through the national media - and that is why a part of the inhab- itants of those towns where the campaign was not conducted know about it. Before the concrete evaluation of the campaign the following should be noted (in our respondents' opinion): • two thirds of respondents know about the campaign, • four fifths think that there is great need for such or similar cam- paigns, • two thirds of respondents who had contact with the campaign (who noticed it) give it a passing mark. MIŠLJENJE O EKO-KAMPANJI »ZAGAĐENJE ZAHTEVA REŠENJE« Da li ste primetili kampanju »Zagađenje zahteva rešenje« koju je organizovao OSCE? (u %) Približno, dve trećina ispitanika je primetilo kampanju, a jedna trećina nije. U centralnoj Srbiji taj odnos je 67 prema 33 %, u Vojvodini 61 prema 39 %, a u Beogradu najmanje: 58 prema 42 %. Drukčiji su podaci u gradovima u kojima je vođena kampanja – 71 % ispitanika ju je primetilo, a 29 % nije – od gradova u kojima nije vođena, 35 % je primetilo kampanju a 65 % nije primetilo. Ovde odmah treba primetiti jednu važnu stvar. Kampanja je viđena i u onim gradovima u kojima nije posebno vođena, znatno manje, ali je viđena. U stvari, deo kampanje su potencijalno mogli da primete svi građani – misli se na onaj deo koji je realizovan preko centralnih medija – otuda imamo pojavu da jedan deo građana zna za kampa- nju, iako ona nije vođena u njihovim gradovima. U uvodu za konkretniju evaluaciju kampanje treba reći da (po mišljenju naših ispitanika): • sa kampanjom je upoznato dve trećine ispitanika, • četiri petine ispitanika smatra da postoji velika potreba za ovakvim ili sličnim kampanjama, • dve trećine ispitanika koji su imali kontakt sa kampanjom (primetili su je) daju kampanji prelaznu ocenu. Requires ? Da li ste primetili kampanju koju je organizovao OEBS? (u %) 55 EVALUATION PROCENA cyan magen yellow black
Perception and Influence of the Campaign – rating by those who know about the Campaign (in %) Our respondents are of the opinion that the greatest success of the »Pollution Requires Solution« campaign lies in motivating eco- activists to put even more effort into their activities. As many as 77 % of respondents think that in this respect the campaign had a consid- erable impact (i.e. »to a considerable extent« and »to a very great extent«) or some impact. The finding that the campaign was noticed by the general public comes second. That the campaign was moderately or very successful in this is the opinion of just over half the respondents (51 %). The same percentage of respondents see the campaign's success in inspiring interest among the general public. Increasing knowledge of environmental problems comes fourth. 45 % of respondents think it was successful to some or a considerable degree; 44 % of respondents think it achieved little success, and 11 % of respondents deny it any success whatsoever. Campaign's impact on activating the competent authorities is in the fifth place, with only slightly less influence than on the general pub- lic's knowledge. Some or a considerable impact was noted by 43 % of respondents, almost as many (45 %) speak of little impact, and 12 % do not see any impact of the campaign in this respect. In the last place is the impact of the campaign on the raising of environmental awareness of the general public. But even here, two fifths of the public give the campaign a passing grade (9 % of respon- dents talk about considerable success, 31 % of some success), 47 % of respondents think that there was little success in this respect, and lastly, 13 % of respondents talk of no success in raising general pub- lic's environmental awareness. It should be noted, considering that some may think that the per- centages denoting success are low, that we are actually speaking here of extraordinary success, and that the campaign success ratings of campaigns in other fields (marketing campaigns, election cam- paigns) usually rate between little successful and unsuccessful. Admittedly, the rating we got should be corrected down because we had, on purpose, a selected and small sample of respondents (dis- proportionally high share of environmental activists). Percepcija i uticaj kampanje – ocene onih koji znaju za kampanju (u %) Naši ispitanici smatraju da je najveći uspeh kampanje »Zagađenje zahteva rešenje« u tome što je kampanja motivisala eko-aktiviste na još veće zalaganje u domenima svoje aktivnosti. Čak 77 % ispitanika smatra da je u ovom okviru kampanja uticala prilično (tj. »mnogo« i »veoma mnogo«) ili osrednje. Na drugom je mestu nalaz da je kampanja primećena među građanima. To ističe kao osrednji ili priličan uspeh gotovo tačno polovina ispitanika (51 %). Isto toliko ispitanika vidi uspeh kampanje u tome što je zainteresovala građane. Na četvrtom mestu je uticaj na povećanje znanja o eko-pitanjima. Osrednjim ili priličnim uspehom kampanje to smatra 45 % ispitanika; za 44 % ispitanika tu je postignut mali uspeh, a 11 % ispitanika negi- ra svaki uspeh. Na petom mestu, tek nešto manje od uticaja na znanje građana, nalazi se uticaj kampanje na aktiviranje nadležnih. Osrednji i priličan uticaj kampanje primetilo je 43 % ispitanika, gotovo isto toliko (45 %) govori o malom uticaju, a 12 % ne vidi nikakav uspeh kampanje u ovom domenu. Na poslednjem mestu je uticaj kampanje na podizanje ekološke svesti građana. No, čak i ovde dve petine građana daje prelaznu ocenu kampanji (9 % ispitanika govori o priličnom uspehu, a 31 % o osrednjem), 47 % ispitanika smatra da je na ovom polju postignut mali uspeh. I na kraju, o odsustvu uticaja kampanje na podizanje ekološke svesti građana govori 13 % ispitanika. Ovde treba reći, s obzirom da se nekome mogu učiniti malim pro- centi koji govore o uspehu kampanje, da je ovde faktički reč o izuzetnom uspehu, s obzirom da se procenti uspešnosti kampanja u drugim domenima (marketinške kampanje, izborne kampanje) obično nalaze u relacijama između malo uspešne i neuspešne. Doduše, ocenu koju smo mi dobili treba korigovati na niže zato što smo ipak imali, a na to smo namerno išli, selekcionisan i mali uzorak ispitanika (neproporcionalno veliki broj ekoloških aktivista). 56 EVALUATION PROCENA cyan magen yellow black
Efectiveness of the media carrying the campaign – ratings by those who knew about the campaign (in %) The media could be classified into four categories: (1) Media effective to a very great extent – spots on national TV sta- tions – 77 % of respondents who had any contact with the campaign gave a passing mark to the effectiveness of this medium or referred to it as having »some« (42 %) or »great« (33 %) effect. (2) Media effective to a great extent – public educational activities (lectures, public discussions, talks) and postcards – the first medium was marked as pass by 70 % of respondents, and second by 67 %. It should be noted that the postcards were mostly rated as effective »to a great extent« (40 %). (3) Media effective to some extent – badges, billboards, daily press advertisements and spots on local TV stations – these media were rated as somewhat or very effective in 57 % to 61 % of replies. (4) Media effective to little extent – radio spots, advertisements in local daily press and advertisements in weeklies – each of these media was rated as being effective to some or great extent by 44 % of respondents. Somewhat different results were obtained when respondents were asked to name just one most effective medium. First it should be noted that spots on national TV stations absolutely dominate here. Almost as many as half the respondents (46%) singled out this medi- um. It is followed by billboards – they were the most effective for 14% of respondents. Spots on local TV stations come third – the most effective medium in the opinion of 10% of respondents. Then follow: public lectures, discussions and talks (8%), postcards (6%), badges (4%), advertisements in daily newspapers (also 4%). Delotvornost mediji preko kojih je realizovana kampanja – ocene onih koji znaju za kampanju (u %) Korišćene medije možemo podeliti u četiri grupe: (1) Mediji veoma velike efikasnosti – spotovi na centralnim TV – 77 % ispitanika koji su imali kontakt sa kampanjom ocenili su delotvornost ovog medija prolaznom, odnosno kao »osrednju« (42 %) ili kao »veliku« (33 %). (2) Mediji velike efikasnosti – javna edukacija (predavanja, tribine i razgovori) i razglednice – prvi medij 70 % ispitanika ocenio je kao prolazni, a drugi 67 %. Treba pomenuti da su razglednice dobile naj- više ocena »velika delotvornost« (40 %). (3) Mediji osrednje efikasnosti – bedževi, bilbordi, oglasi u dnevnim novinama i spotovi na lokalnim TV – efikasnost ovih mediji ocenjena je kao osrednja ili velika u opsegu od 57 % do 61 %. (4) Mediji male efikasnosti - spotovi na radiju, oglasi u lokalnim novi- nama i oglasi u nedeljnicima – delotvornost svakog od ovih medija ocenjena je kao osrednja ili velika od strane 44 % ispitanika. Nešto drukčije rezultate daju odgovori na pitanje u kojem je od ispitanika traženo da izaberu samo jedan najefikasniji medij. Pre svega treba reći da ovde apsolutno dominiraju spotovi na centralnim televizijama. Čak gotovo polovina ispitanika (46 %) izdvojila je upra- vo ovaj medij. Na drugom mestu su bilbordi – oni su najefikasniji za 14 % ispitanika. Na trećem mestu su spotovi na lokalnim televizija- ma – oni su najefikasniji medij po mišljenju 10 % ispitanika. Potom slede: javna predavanja, tribine i razgovori (8 %), razglednice (6 %), bedževi (4 %), oglasi u dnevnim novinama (takođe 4 %). 57 EVALUATION PROCENA cyan magen yellow black
How do our respondents rate the Draft Law? In Central Serbia 43 % of respondents rated the Draft Law (the dominant mark is very good – 19 % and good – 17 %), in Vojvodina 54 % (the dominant mark is good – 26 % and very good – 22 %), while in Belgrade, only 25 % of respondents gave any mark (the dominant mark being very good – 15 %). CONCLUSION The highest value of this model for legislation and institutional building lays in fact that such an procedure which involves all the stakeholders (all levels of governance, members of parliament, experts, governmental and nongovernmental organizations and ordi- nary citizens), has not been performed in Serbia and FRY, ever before. This is the reason why the draft of the Environmental Law was widely accepted and conformed with all the interested, accompanied with overall awareness and responsibility raising. We have exercised num- ber elements for the public participation in the consultation and commenting process. With extensive side activities and media cam- paign, attention was drawn to the substance of the programme obtaining such strong support to the drafting process. On the other hand, decision-makers received clear message on the importance of the issue for the overall development and for the Accession to EU. We believe that this successful model could and should be used for the other areas but also for the other countries. Kako naši ispitanici ocenjuju Nacrt zakona? U centralnoj Srbiji ocene je dalo 43 % ispitanika (dominiraju ocene vrlo dobar – 19 % i dobar – 17 %), u Vojvodini 54 % (dominiraju ocene dobar – 26 % i vrlo dobar – 22 %), dok je u Beogradu ocene dalo tek 25 % ispitanika (dominira ocena vrlo dobar – 15 %). ZAKLJUČAK Najveća vrednost ovog modela izrade zakona i izgradnje institucija jeste činjenica da je po prvi put u Srbiji i SRJ sprovedena potpuna procedura koja je uključila sve učesnike u procesu planiranja razvo- ja: predstavnike vlasti na svim nivoima, skupštinske poslanike, eks- pertske grupe, vladine i nevladine organizacije i obične građane. To je razlog zašto je predlog Zakona bio široko prihvaćen i usaglašen sa svim interesima, uz značajno povećanje opšteg nivoa svesti i osećaja odgovornosti. U modelu su korišćeni elementi učešća javnosti kroz javne rasprave i komentare na nacrt Zakona. Nizom pratećih aktivnosti i medijskom kampanjom, pažnja je skrenuta na ovaj pro- ces što je doprinelo mobilisanju javnog mnjenja i jačoj podršci inici- jativi na izradi ovog pravnog akta. S druge strane, donosioci odluka su imali jasnu poruku da je ovaj deo zakonodavstva bitan element sveobuhvatnog razvoja, kao i processa priključenja Evropskoj uniji. Smatramo da se ovakav model može i treba primeniti i u drugim oblastima, ali i u drugim sredinama. 58 EVALUATION PROCENA cyan magen yellow black
60 MAIN INTERLOCUTORS GLAVNI SAGOVORNICI 1. Adam Amberg , Counsellor / Swedish Development Programme Coordinator, SIDA (FRY) 2. Alessandro Rampazzo , First Secretary, Italian Embassy in FRY 3. Anđelka Mihajlov , Director General, Directorate for Environmental Protection, Ministry for Health and Environmental Protection, Republic of Serbia 4. Andrej Steiner , Reg. Environmental Advisor, UNDP Regional Bureau for Europe and the CISRBEC Reg. Support Centre 5. Arcadie Capcelea , Lead Specialist, Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development, Europe and Central Asia Region, The World Bank 6. Arthur Flanagan , General Development Officer, USAID (FRY) 7. Barbara Curran , Head of the Technical Cooperation & Aid Programme, Canadian Embassy in FRY 8. Bjoern Erik Brustad , Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Adviser 9. Bojan Zečević , Executive Director G17+ 10. Boris Tadić , FRY Minister for Telecommunications 11. Branko Gavrić , General Manager and Creative Director, Total Design 12. Carl Mitchell , Deputy Chief, Environment and Natural Resources Division, Bureau for Europe and Eurasia, USAID 13. Čedo Maksimović , Professor, Imperial Colledge, Department of Civil and Environmental Engeneering 14. Christian Hellbach , Counsellor Deputy Head of Mission, Embassy of the Republic of Germany in FRY 15. Dirk Sander , Second Secretary, Embassy of the Republic of Germany in FRY 16. Đorđe Staničić , Secretary General, Standing Conference of Towns and Municipalities of Yugoslavia 17. Dragan Sakan , Regional Director S Team Ideas Group 18. Dragoljub Kavran , President, Civil Service Council, Republic of Serbia 19. Elaine W. Patterson , Acting Country Manager, The World Bank (FRY) 20. Francis O’Donnell , Head of Office, UNDP (FRY) 21. Francoas Frederic , CoE, Mission in FRY 22. Frits Schlingemann , Director and Regional Representative, Regional Bureau for Europe, UNEP 23. Gaudenz B. Ruf , Ambassador of Switzerland in FRY 24. Giovanna Agostinelli , Ministry of Environment, Italy 25. Giovanni Caracciolo di Vietri , Ambassador, Embassy of Italy in FRY 26. Goran Milićev , Environmental and Natural Resources Protection Team, G17+ 27. Goran Pitić , Minister for International Economic Affairs, Republic of Serbia 28. Gordana Petković , FRY Secretariat for Labor, Health and Social Care 29. Guido Lenzi , Head of Italian delegation to the OSCE 30. Hannes Porias , Ambassador, Embassy of Austria in FRY 31. Hannu Vikkman , Consultant, HVC Finland 32. Hans Ola Urstad , Ambassador of the Royal Norwegian Embassy in FRY 33. Hasso Molineus , Programming and Coordination, EAR in FRY 34. Helen Holm , Programme Manager Department for Central and Eastern Europe, SIDA 35. Hugo Klijn , Deputy Head of Mission, Royal Netherlands Embassy in FRY 36. Jadranko Simić , Senior Adviser, FRY Ministry for Health and Social Care, Secretariat for Environment 37. Jan Lundin , Counsellor, Embassy of Sweden in FRY 38. Jan Willem Blankert , Counsellor, EU Delegation of the European Commission in FRY 39. Jean-Daniel Ruch , Counsellor, Embassy of Switzerland in FRY 40. Jean-Pierre Biebuyck , Second Secretary, Belgium Embassy in FRY 41. Jeoffrey Barrett , HoD, EU Delegation of the European Commission in FRY 42. Joachim Schmidt , Ambassador, Embassy of the Republic of Germany in FRY 43. Joanne Moody , Resident Advisor, NDI in FRY 44. Joern Laxen , Project Director, Environment, Helsinki Consulting Group 45. Jonathan Lacote , Second Counsellor, French Embassy in FRY 46. Josef Aregger , Deputy Head of Swiss delegation to OSCE 47. Jyri Jarviaho , Second Secretary, Embassy of Finland in FRY 48. Kaj Baerlund , Director Environment and Human Settlements Division, UNECE 49. Karsten Cristensen , Royal Danish Embassy in FRY, Second Secretary 50. Katarina Kovačević , Program Manager, Department for International Development, British Embassy in FRY 51. Katherine Brucker , U.S. Mission to the OSCE 52. Kees Klompenhouwer , Ambassador, Royal Dutch Embassy in FRY 53. Kelly Anderson , Second Secretary, Canadian Embassy in FRY 54. Laura Anna Susani , Adviser, Italian Ministry for the Environment and Protection of Territory 55. Lidija Bartuš Vasiljević – Editor in Chief, International News, TV Studio B 56. Luigi Migliorini , Head of Mission, WHO Regional Office for Europe 57. Maria Teresa Mauro , UNLO in FRY 58. Marija Carić , Deputy Secretary General, Standing Conference of Towns and Municipalities of Yugoslavia 59. Mark Pickett , USAID in FRY 60. Marko Simurina , Adviser, Directorate for Environmental Protection, Ministry for Health and Environmental Protection, Republic of Serbia 61. Markus Eggenberger , Programme Officer, Cooperation with Eastern Europe and CIS, SDC 62. Mary Pat Silveira , Chief, EP and Governance UNECE 63. Massimo Cozzone , Ministry of Environment, Italy 64. Maurizio Ranalli , Programme Manager – Infrastructure, EAR in FRY 65. Mihajlo Gavrić , Assistant Director of Hydrology, Federal Hydrometeorological Institute 66. Mijat Damjanović , PALGO Center, Director 67. Milan Pajević , National (FRY) Coordinator of the Stability Pact for South Eastern Europe 68. Milutin Komanović , Deputy Secretary General, Environmental Protection Sector, City Hall of Belgrade 69. Mirko Mandić , Client Service Director, SVA 70. Obren Joksimović , Minister of Health and Environment, Republic of Serbia PARTICIPANTS U»ESNICI cyan magen yellow black
71. Pasi Rinne , Senior Advisor to the Chairman, UNEP in FRY 72. Paul Rowland , Program Director – Serbia, NDI in FRY 73. Paul van Ostveen , Second Secretary, Royal Netherlands Embassy in FRY 74. Pierre Maurer , Secretary Deputy Head of Mission, SDC/SECO in FRY 75. Radomir Burić , Team Leader, UNDP in FRY 76. Roeland Kortas , Programme Manager, UNOPS in FRY 77. Rolf Andreas Vestvik , Second Secretary, Royal Norwegian Embassy in FRY 78. Ronald Dreyer , Expert, Special Co-ordinator of the Stability Pact for South Eastern Europe 79. Rosa Elcarte Lopez , General Coordinator, Office for Spanish Techical Assistance to the Balkans 80. Sarah Price , Deputy Head of Mission, British Embassy in FRY 81. Signe Brudet , First Secretary, Royal Norwegian Embassy in FRY 82. Sigrid Berka , Attaché, Embassy of Austria in FRY 83. Siniša Mitrović , Head of Parliamentarian Environmental Committee, Parliament of Serbia 84. Slađana Prica , Director of the OSCE and CoE, Federal Ministry of Foreign Affairs 85. Slavica Petijević , Sector Director, Public Enterprise for Postal Services – Serbia 86. Srđa Popović , Member of Serbian Parliament 87. Srećko Mihajlović , Center for Policy Studies 88. Stavros Venizelos , Second Secretary, Embassy of the Helenic Republic in FRY 89. Takaaki Saito , Second Secretary, Embassy of Japan in FRY 90. Tatjana Veljković , Assistant to the Director, Directorate for Environmental Protection, Ministry for Health and Environmental Protection, Republic ofSerbia 91. Tihomir Obradović , Minister Assistant, Ministry of Urban Planning and Construction, Republic of Serbia 92. Tomas Hart , Third Secretary, Checz Republic Embassy in FRY 93. Tomas Hertzman , Planning Director, Scandiaconsult Natura, Sweden 94. Toni Popovski , Executive Director, REC 95. Veljko Đurić , Vice President CEO - Zenith Media S, S Team Ideas Group 96. Vera Janković , Adviser to the Minister, Directorate for Environmental Protection, Ministry for Health and Environmental Protection, Republic of Serbia 97. Volker Timmermann , Second Secretary, Embassy of the Republic of Germany 98. Wendy Grieder , Office of International Activities, USEPA 99. Yukihiro Takeya , Second Secretary, Embassy of Japan in FRY 100. Žarko Paunović , Director, Center for Development of Nonprofit Sector (CRNPS) 101. Zoran Marković , Programme Coordinator, Center for Development of Nonprofit Sector (CRNPS) 102. Zoran Živković , FRY Minister for Interior 103. Counterparts from Mission to the FRY, other Missions, Podgorica Office and Vienna HQ CONTRACTED PARTNERS UGOVORNI PARTNERI 1. WARHOL Creative Event Management - Display construction, expo image print – Izlagačka oprema 2. APPLE Co Technical services - tehničke usluge za konferenciju 3. BLUE WAVE Technical services - tehničke usluge za konferenciju 4. CPA Center for Policy Studies – Centar za proučavanje alternativa 5. EURODŽET Tourist Agency - Turistička agencija 6. Fotokopirnica DRAGAN Fotocopy 7. Fotokopirnica PANDA Fotocopy 8. GAMA ELECTRONICS 9. HOTEL HYATT 10. HOTEL KASINA 11. HOTEL JUGOSLAVIJA 12. JAVNO PREDUZEĆE PTT SAOBRAĆAJA SRBIJA Public Post Company 13. JKP Zelenilo Beograd Public Company for Spatial Decoration 14. KLUB KNJIŽEVNIKA 15. LUX DESIGN Design Studio - Studio za dizajn i izradu unikatnih i dekorativnih predmeta 16. MEDIA CENTER 17. PARTY SERVICE 18. PERPER Restaurant - samostalna ugostiteljska radnja 19. PRESS CLIPPING 20. Slobodan Čulić , CD NEWS TV Production – TV Produkcija 21. SVA Advertising Agency - Preduzeće za usluge ekonomske propagande 22. Svetlana Dingarac Artistic Photography – Umetnička fotografija 23. TOTAL DESIGN Marketing and Design Agency Preduzeće za marketing, dizajn i usluge NGOs NEVLADINE ORGANIZACIJE 1. Distrikt 0230 Kikinda 2. Eko-Baza JUG Vlasotince 3. G17 Plus 4. Grabovac (Eco Grab) Obrenovac 5. Kruševački Ekološki Centar (KEC) Kruševac 6. Mladen Karaman Kragujevac 7. Ekologija futur 2000 Niš 8. Open University - Otvoreni univerzitet Subotica 9. Pralipe Pirot 10. Standing Conference of Yugoslav Cities and Towns - Stalna konferencija gradova i opština Jugoslavije 11. Timok Club - Timočki klub Knjaževac 12. Vrelo Novi Sad 13. Young Researchers of Bor - Društvo mladih istraživača Bor 14. Young Researchers of Serbia - Mladi istraživači Srbije Beograd 61 PARTICIPANTS U»ESNICI cyan magen yellow black
WE ALL WISH… To help Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) to became a full mem- ber of Europe and developed world To have Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) a country from which people would not like to leave To make Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) a place where you can live good, from your own work To comprehend Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) as a country which has its own specifics and history To see Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) goodman and a good neighbor To enable Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) to help the others To find Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) a happy and beautiful place, to come and to stay. ONO ŠTO ŽELIMO JE… Da pomognemo da Jugoslavija (Srbija i Crna Gora) postane puno- pravni član Evrope i razvijenog sveta Da ostvarimo da Jugoslavija (Srbija i Crna Gora) bude zemlja iz koje ljudi neće želeti da odu Da učinimo da Jugoslavija (Srbija i Crna Gora) postane mesto gde se može dobro živeti od sopstvenog rada Da razumemo Jugoslaviju (Srbiju i Crnu Goru), njenu posebnost i njenu istoriju Da vidimo Jugoslaviju (Srbiju i Crnu Goru) kao dobrog domaćina i dobrog suseda Da omogućimo da Jugoslavija (Srbija i Crna Gora) pomogne drugima Da doživimo Jugoslaviju (Srbiju i Crnu Goru) kao srećno i lepo mesto, u koje želite da dođete, i da ostanete. 62 EPILOGUE EPILOG cyan magen yellow black
yellow black 63
OSCE’S ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION GUIDE OEBSOV VODIČ KROZ EKOLOŠKO ZAKONODAVSTVO PUBLISHER - IZDAVAČ : OSCE Mission to the FRY [email protected] Misija OEBS-a u SRJ EDITORIAL TEAM - UREĐIVAČKI TIM : Economic and Environmental Department [email protected], Odeljenje za ekonomska pitanja i politiku zaštite životne sredine DESIGN - DIZAJN : Total Design [email protected] IMAGES - FOTOGRAFIJE : Svetlana Dingarac [email protected] TRANSLATORS AND INTERPRETERS - PREVODIOCI : Biljana Ledeničanin Mirko Lukić Nada Pančić Nevena Nedić Radmila Vujović PROOF-READER - LEKTOR I KOREKTOR : Vidojko Jović PRINTED BY - ŠTAMPA : Tipografic + COPIES - TIRAŽ : 400 DVD POLLUTION REQUIRES SOLUTION - ZAGAĐENJE ZAHTEVA REŠENJE PRODUCTION - PRODUKCIJA : CDNEWS [email protected] COVER DESIGN - DIZAJN OMOTA : Total Design Disc N° - Disk br : DVD-OMIFRY/EE/001-02 Number of copies - Broj kopija : 1000 MINI CD DATA DISC - BAZA PODATAKA WEB PRESENTATION AND DATA MANAGEMENT - INTERNET PREZENTACIJA I ORGANIZACIJA PODATAKA: Gama Electronics [email protected] Number of copies - Broj kopija : 500 All rights over this multimedia publication are the property of the OSCE 64 cyan magen yellow black CIP - Katalogizacija u publikaciji Narodna biblioteka Srbije, Beograd 340.134:504.06(497.11) OSCE’S Environmental Legislation Guide: for everyone = VodiË kroz ekoloπko zakonodavstvo: za svakoga/ [UreivaËki tim Odeljenje za ekonomska pitanja i politiËku zaπtitu æivotne sredine; fotografije Svetlana Dingarac; prevo- dioci Biljana LedeniËanin et al.]. - [S.l.]: OSCE Mission to the FRY oscemission, Misija OEBS-a u SRJ, 2002.- 61 str.: fotogr. u boji; 28 cm. Tiraæ 400. - Uporedni tekst na engl. i srp. jeziku. ISBN 86-903283-3-5 1. Up. stv. nasl. a) Æivotna sredina - Zakonodavstvo - Jugoslavija (SR) COBISS-ID 100930316
Search
