REC hosts 47 activists in Budapest
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

At a conference in Budapest, NGO activists try to understand why
they aren't cooperating. No matter how hard you try to answer them,
some questions just won't go away: Why don't environmental NGOs
cooperate with each other? What should their priorities be? What kind
of information do NGOs need? What can the Regional Environmental
Center do to help them?

The REC invited 47 environmental activists representing 29 NGOs from
11 countries to discuss these issues in Budapest last December. The
activists consisted of two groups. One group included 31 winners of
REC earmarked grants, which are grants usually between ECU 10,000 and
20,000 awarded to larger NGOs. The second group was composed of 16
former junior fellows, young environmentalists who had spent one
month training at the REC.

This was the first time the REC had ever organized such a
conference, and it was also one of the REC's most successful actions
in promoting cooperation.

Out of five working groups scheduled for the afternoon, three
focusedon cooperation: the theory and practice of cooperation
between NGOs, business, and government. The REC needs to understand
the results of these workshops because an important part of its
mission is "to promote cooperation in environmental decision making."
Up to now, out of 51 awarded earmarked grants, "not a single grant
involved cooperation in terms of distributing duties and
responsibilities for the project," explains Ferenc Feher, the
earmarked grants team leader. Why not? This was for the
environmentalists at the workshop to explain.

The most serious obstacle, according to the participants, is that
many groups do not understand how cooperating with others will help
them; the benefits of cooperation are unclear. A second reason is
that suitable partners are difficult to find because NGOs are at
different stages of development, working on different topics, and
using different approaches in their work. Building bridges across all
these differences is a challenge. Third, most partnerships are born
at meetings, like this one in Budapest. But finding and keeping
contacts requires more effort and energy (people, money) than what is
available to most grassroots organizations. Paying for telephone
calls and faxes or going to meetings, for instance, can be quite
expensive, and well-developed NGOs are often the only ones who can
afford those costs, according to Alexander Juras who is responsible
for the REC's local offices and who helped organize the Budapest
conference.

__________________________________
Highlights from the working groups

Cooperation Among NGOs in the Region: 

No cooperation. Cooperation among Central and Eastern European NGOs
is rare. Except for occasional joint actions on transboundary
pollution problems and passive information exchange among NGOs
working on similar projects, NGOs in the Region do not cooperate.
NGOs are unsure why cooperation can be helpful, and there is
insufficient personal contact to establish lasting partnerships.

Cooperation Between Governments, NGOs, and Businesses

Different objectives. NGOs are concerned with the value of the
environment itself, government is concerned with social welfare and
health, and business wants a green image to boost profits. But
cooperation is still possible, although each side must be sure it
will gain from the partnership.

Information Needs of NGOs

Training, not books. NGOs need information on past projects (what
worked and what failed), training and educational opportunities,
project management, organization management, and funding sources.
Direct training workshops are usually more effective than how-to
manuals.

Possibilities for the REC

Cooperation and Information. The REC could be more active in helping
NGOs find partners (through meetings) and could even make
cooperation a prerequisite for funding. The REC, especially the local
offices, could also be more active in collecting and disseminating
information. The REC could help setup e-mail networks. (Many of the
recommendations are already being planned.)

For more information...

A more detailed package is available from 
Information Exchange Team
Regional Environmental Center
e-mail: 
 
Source:
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
 
******                    ****** 
*     *                  *     * 
*     *                 *      * 
*    *  ****  ***      *     *  *   * *    *    **** ***** * *   *
*****   *    *        ******   *   * *    *    *      *   * **  *
*   *   ***  *       *     *  *   * *    *    ***    *   * * * *
*    *  *    *      *      * *   * *    *    *      *   * *  **
*     * ****  ***  *      * ***** **** **** ****   *   * *   *
*      *          ******* 


Volume 4 * Number 4 * Winter 1994
  
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> 

A quarterly of the Regional Environmental Center
for Central and Eastern Europe (REC)

________________________________________________________________________
REC BULLETIN, formerly the Information Bulletin of the REC, promotes
integrated solutions to environmental problems by promoting
understanding among NGOs, governments and other diverse interests.
________________________________________________________________________

The Bulletin is published quarterly and distributed free to all
interested parties in Central and Eastern Europe. It is also available
electronically. Please direct all correspondence to Editor, The
Bulletin, Regional Environmental Center, Miklos ter 1, 1035 Budapest,
Hungary. tel: (36-1) 250-3401 * fax: (36-1) 250-3403
e-mail:
Editor: Nicolas Johnson
Editorial Assistants: Daniel Langenkamp, Richard Berry
Layout: Sylvia Magyar
Editorial Board: Emil Dzuray, Magdolna Toth Nagy, Laszlo Perneczky, 
Ivelin Roussev, Alexandru Savulescu, Janos Zlinszky
Electronic Version: Rossen Roussev 
________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________             
          
Ivelin Roussev                   Information Exchange Team 
Information Specialist           The Regional Environmental Center
e-mail:                Miklos ter 1
ftp: ftp.rec.hu                  H-1035 Budapest                         
http: www.rec.hu                 Hungary
                                 Tel: +361.250.3401
                                 Fax: +361.250.3403
__________________________________________________________________

Kedves Gabor!

Bocs, hogy mindig Veled vitatkozom - eskuszom, hogy nem pikkelek Rad...
Talan csak megtestesited a "masik oldalt" - ami tulajdonkepp nagyon jo, mert,
ahogy errefele mondjak, "keeps us honest".

Az atomeromuvek nem a kozvetlen kornyezo lakossag szamara a legnegativabbak. 
Hisz, mint ahogy ez sok szemelyes levelbol is kiderult, az atomenergia a
kornyeken infrastrukturat, allasokat teremt; a lakossag a demokratikusabb
orszagokban valamilyen modon kompenzalva van a kockazatert (iskolak, korhazak,
olcso energia, stb).  Es bar ez nem a legetiqsabb megoldas, de egyelore ez
tunik a kornyezeti "igazsagtalansagok" (=environmental equity, sajnos nem
nagyon tudom a magyar szakzsargont, nyugodtan javitsatok ki) egyetlen fair
megoldasanak: a nagyobb kockazatot vagy szennyezest kapo lakossagnak egyreszt
legyen meg a valasztasa, hogy akarja-e; masreszt, hogy mennyiert - vagyis
mennyi kompenzacioert cserebe hajlando elviselni a trutyit.  Es bar ez joggal
kritizalhato, de vegulis egesz eletunkben hasonlo donteseket hozunk:  inkabb
raaldozzuk a gatyank es szetzotyogjuk a villamoson az eletunk, hogy tiszta
levegoju helyen vegyunk lakast; vagy megkotjuk a kompromisszumot es befogjuk az
orrunk, de kozel akarunk lenni a belvaroshoz, es a megmarado penzbol
tudoszanatorium-berletet veszunk.

Tehat, ha az eromu kornyezeteben levo lakossagnak van valami valasztasa es ezen
kivul reszesul infrastrukturaban, munkalehetosegekben, orvosi
tobbletellatasban, akkor nem azoknak a legrosszabb, hanem a par tucat es -szaz
kilometerre lakoknak.  Ennek jo peldaja a Mohi eromu: aztan Becs es Budapest
mindenben reszesul az atomeromuvel kapcsolatban, csak a benefitekben es
kompenzacioban nem....

Amugy a felsorolasod egyebkent sem volt jo erv, szerintem.  Egyreszt, a Three
Mile Island-i eromuvel nehezen lehet ervelni az atomenergia mellett (szerepelt
a felsorolasodban) - a Csernobil utani valaha tortent legnagyobb atombaleset
ott tortent (szepen telekopkodte a varost, es a veszintezkedesek messze nem
voltak gyorsak, jol szervezettek es biztonsagosak) , es az a pennsylvaniai
varos bizony nem hiszem, hogy szereti, hogy mellettuk van Three Mile Island... 


Es, akkor, ha valami az USAban valahogy van, akkor mi van????  Akkor gyorsan le
kell majmolni?!  Akkor az a Szentiras?  Nem lehet, hogy valamit az USA is el
tud rontani?   Pl. az a teny akkor szerintem mar sokkal idevagobb, hogy 20 eve
mar SEMMI atomeromu nem epul az USAban, nem hogy varosokhoz kozel nem...

Diana

Olvastam:
"Almost 40% of the poeple of Rongelap, a Pacific Island about 150 km from
Bikini, have cancer, according to a Japanese medical team.  Bikini was the site
of American nuclear-bomb test in 1946-58."
Economist, 95 Marc. 4, pp 4.

Az 1995. marcius 4-i Heti Vilaggazdasagban (41-42. oldal) jelent meg Beton a 
szurdokba cimmel egy cikk a Jangce folyon epitendo eromurol.

A lenyeg: A vilag legnagyobb vizieromuvet kivanjak felepiteni Kinaban. 
Illetve mar kb. 75 eve hol kivanjak, hol nem, de most el is kezdtek a 
megvalositast. A pro es kontra ervekrol szol a cikk.
Nehany ezek kozul:
pro: 
    - Sanghaj es Csungkin varos (17,5 millio ember+ipar) ellatasa arammal
    - a Jangce aradasveszelyenek csokkentese
    - "a nemzeti nagylet nagy buszkesege" ( lehet, hogy az orosz-szovjet 
kontra amerikai gigantomania utan uj parbaj kezdodik? )

kontra:
    - irdatlan koltseg ( aka'r 70 milliard $-rol is emlitest tesznek)
    - a - mondhatni - szokasos kornyezetvedelmi aggalyok, amelyek - 
szinten szokasosan - jobban ala vannak tamasztva, mint a cafolatuk

Nem szakembereknek is javaslom, en nagyon erdekesnek talaltam. Esetleg a 
teljes cikk begepelesere is hajlando vagyok, ha nagyon lustak vagytok a 
HVG-t elokeresni es, ha nincs sorlimit. :-)
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Kedves Csussz!  A sorlimitet nem lehet kikapcsolni vagy tuljarni az eszen.  
Altalaban az emberek figyelme sem szokott 100-200 sornal tovabb terjedni.  Ha
valami erdekes van, ami hosszu, mint pl. a UNEP-tanulmany volt, akkor az meg
erdekesebb reszekben.  Potyogd be, es kuldd be felszabdalva szamonkent!
Moderator
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

csussz

Sokat hallani ma a nullponti energia felhasznalasarol, mint a jovo 
tiszta es kornyezetkimelo energiaforrasarol. Tudtok-e arrol, hogyan 
itelik meg ezt a nagy kutatohelyek, van-e valami informaciotok mukodo 
berendezesrol, kutatasokrol?
     Gabor Gindele
     LAB-COM GmbH.
  
Phone: (+36 1) 201-5899 
 Fax: (+36 1) 201-5581