The people on the ground
John Hontelez, secretary general of the European Environmental Bureau (EEB), has been involved in the EfE process from an NGO perspective since the very beginning, with his first involvement coming as a member of Friends of the Earth International. Having joined the EEB in 1996, Hontelez recalls the excitement and optimism that led to the first EfE meeting and the energy that was channelled into what is arguably the high-water mark of the process: 1998's Aarhus Convention, EfE's most sweeping and influential legally binding document — and a document that he believes is "likely to outlive the EfE process" itself.
"Things were exciting in '91, and the mood was really hopeful," said Hontelez. "As attending NGOs, we were only able to comment on drafts, but we came extremely well prepared. Following the political and economic changes, we saw the necessity to respond to the possibility for the West to engage the East in discussing environmental issues and possible support. It was quite clear from the beginning that the emerging process would be moving in a west-to-east direction, as the biggest environmental problems were legacies from the political system that was being done away with. One of the keys, however, in the early years, was that some countries really took the lead in steering the process — Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, for example."
Hontelez claimed that NGOs over the years have, perhaps, achieved less than hoped for in terms of lasting results, but that long-term political success is not the only thing to be gained from participating in the process; EfE, for example, continues to be an important framework for NGOs in terms of getting to know each other and striking up new partnerships. He also referred to the important role that NGOs play in addressing difficult issues: Are Western Europe's environmental problems solved? How does the EU plan to continue growing economically while shrinking consumption? What are the consequences of transport sector liberalisation?
In terms of REC contributions to the EfE process, Hontelez particularly praised the "invaluable" work of Magdolna Toth-Nagy in making Aarhus a reality, and the organisation's efforts to defend Aarhus in follow-up negotiations. He also credited REC Moldova for doing good work, but added that some offices and NGOs have moved farther away from the notion of participating with civil society.
Victoria Elias, chairperson for the European EcoForum, is based in Russia and works for the World Wildlife Foundation. Elias claimed that there is no "special selection process" for NGOs wishing to be part of the coalition participating in the EfE process; the only prohibition is being affiliated with a national government. Like Hontelez, Elias would like to see EfE move forward more effectively in terms of achieving legally binding agreements.
"Implementation and commitment are now really important, but to me it's a big question of whether an 'implementation' conference would really attract many ministers," said Elias. "And the big problem now is that funding is going down and down. Then it depends on donor rules and what they want to contribute to. Maybe they're willing to put money into water and sanitation, which is important everywhere, but will there be any funds available for biodiversity?"
Elias' comments seem to echo those of several individuals who feel that the process lacks larger focus and unified commitment.
"Maybe the process should become issue-driven, maybe something like conservation," Elias continued. "What should be improved first? What sort of economic instruments should be used? It would really be nice to see governments commit to programmes over 10 years or more — to phase out unsustainable energy practices, for example — moving toward sustainable consumption strategies."
"As for new initiatives," Hontelez wondered, "which is the next? Right now things are definitely more complicated, and the willingness is disappearing. Sometimes the [European] Commission is wondering why they have to travel to Geneva for something that can be sorted out in Brussels. If the process continues, maybe it should ideally consist of countries who really want to be part of it. But in any case, the countries of the former Soviet Union are the countries that need the process the most; they're the one's that will suffer the most if the process disappears."
