Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
them are various governing institutions, political parties, and courts. In
the three cases under examination here, the local groups have relied
heavily on the advice and (limited) access of movement actors to offi cial
institutions. Only in Krumovgrad have direct local ties to national-level
political actors been a major factor.
The central institution involved in the processes studied here has been
the Ministry of Environment and Water. The role of the ministry in the
EIA process has put it on the front line of decision making regarding
these investments. The process has not been smooth. The ministry's
Supreme Environmental Expert Council is charged with issuing opinions
on EIA cases, and the politics around the staffi ng of this council and its
decisions have been controversial. The NGO community pressed to have
a voice on council appointments in order to strengthen its independence
from government interests, and two NGO members, Dimitur Vassilev
and Andrei Kovatchev, were appointed to the council. The council
approved the EIA for Chelopech in February 2006. However, the
council's decisions are only recommendations to the minister, and another
level of political struggle ensued after the council's decision. The minister
returned the EIA to the council for reconsideration, and it was approved
again at the end of March. At the height of the mobilization against the
approval of the projects in March 2006, when protests were occurring
outside the ministry, the NGO representatives were barred from entering
and Vassilev was even arrested. Rather than approve the EIA after the
second decision from the council, the minister froze the process.
The ministry, however, has to negotiate authority with other interested
institutions. The Economy Ministry has been an advocate for these proj-
ects, to the point of engaging in public criticism of the Ministry of
Environment (see, for example,
Sofi a Echo
2007). These struggles can
rise to cabinet level, and the prime minister balances various government
interests in deciding on a course of action. It is likely that the EU infringe-
ment case and growing EU pressure on Bulgaria more generally to
strengthen accountability and the rule of law led the government to
negotiate with Dundee over Chelopech, despite the obstruction from the
Ministry of Environment.
Offi cials from the major political parties, particularly the Bulgarian
Socialist Party and parts of the former Union of Democratic Forces,
4
have at varying times promoted or enabled the investments in question.
Neither camp has taken a clear stance in support of public participation
in decisions regarding these projects. The one party that has been
involved, the Movement for Rights and Freedoms, has also not taken a
