74

States and Non-State Actors inEnvironmental Policy Making:

An Overview of theGEF-BSEP NGO Forum

By

Omer Faruk Genckaya

“Present environmental govern-ance depends on easily accessible infor-mation about environmental quality andenvironmental policies, transparent ac-tions by international organizations andgovernment, the continued participationin environmental diplomacy by non-stateactors, sustained levels of public concernin major countries, and improved na-tional capacity for environmental pro-tection.”1 This chapter discusses stateand NGO actors with the Black Sea En-vironmental Program in terms of theseimportant factors. The paper beginswith a discussion of recent ideas andscholarly literature concerning state andNGO actors in international environ-mental politics.

State and Non-State Actors

The first major international at-tempt to bring all the nations together tosolve the global environmental problemswas the 1972 Stockholm Conference or-ganized by the United Nations (UN).The major contribution of this Confer-ence was that nongovernmental organi-zations (NGOs), for the first time wererecognized by the state actors interna-tionally. Two decades after the Stock-holm Conference, the relationship be-tween the UN system and NGOs evolvedin a multi-dimensional way and manylevels at the UN Conference on Envi-ronment and Development (UNCED) orthe Rio summit.2 Both the UNCED pro-

cess and Agenda 21 encouraged the es-tablishment of environmental NGOs andincluded them on environmental man-agement issues.

Following is a discussionof the rise of non-state participation inenvironmental policymaking, which willprovide the framework for this chapter.After a brief discussion of non-governmental participation on environ-mental issues, this paper will outline thestate of environment in the Black Sea.Next, there will be a sketch onenvironmental cooperation developed bythe state actors regionwide and finally adiscussion on the achievements of theGlobal Environment Facility-supportednongovernmental activites in the region.

Non-state participation in environ-mental policymaking

Global environmental govern-ance requires the participation of non-state actors, including NGOs, intergov-ernmental organizations (IGOs), andmarket-oriented actors, (e.g. multina-tional corporations), in solving theglobal environmental issues.3 Besidesstate actors, both IGOs and NGOs havebeen playing an increasingly key role forregional institutions, participating inmany activities, previously known“states-only” activities.4 Because of thereluctance of national governments totake effective measures against the envi-ronmental issues, non-state actors ap-peared to be the leader of environmentalactivities at local and global levels.While participating in formulating,promulgating, and enforcing rules, non-state actors affect the behavior of a widerange of actors.

Non-state actors carry an instru-mental function, especially in informa-tion gathering, policy development, and

75

policy assessment5 for the states’ regu-latory actions. The unique capacity ofNGOs in mobilizing local institutions onadvocacy and awareness of global envi-ronmental problems essentially comesfrom “their singular attention to envi-ronmental issues; lack of territorial andsovereign allegiances; and their trans-parency.”6 Global scale environmentalproblems, like climate change, aremainly determined by individualsources7 so that, the success and failureof global environmental politics is de-pendent on the behavior of the ordinarycitizen, (i.e., compatibility of bottom-upand top-down institutional arrange-ments). In this respect, environmentalNGOs stand in a unique position bylinking the global and the local.

The functions of environmentalNGOs (ENGOs) in international institu-tions are complex. They link and trans-late norms, practices, and informationbetween national and international lev-els.8 The special significance of NGOslies in their ability to gain media atten-tion, mobilize support, provide informa-tion, offer or withhold legitimacy forgovernmental policies, and operatetransnationally in cementing the contri-bution of IGOs and the scientific com-munity.9 NGOs lobby states and advo-cate their interests within and across so-cieties. Additionally, transnational envi-ronmental activist groups enhance ac-countability, participation, and continu-ing momentum for political reform in-volving “world civic politics”.10

An emerging global civil societyparadigm emphasizes the networks ofprivate and voluntary organizations andinstitutions (global civil society actors)in international environmental politics asa bottom-up arrangement.11 Global civilsociety actors with their normative con-structs, seem to overcome the structural

constrains of the ENGOs, which can se-verely limit what an NGO can do12, inthe long–run. For example, it is evidentthat democratic political order facilitatesthe effectiveness of the NGO activities.Besides, “an environmental policy pro-posal by an NGO which would affect thevital interest of powerful organizations isunlikely to be accepted.”13 However,global civil society actors may replacethe elitist structure of the ENGOs by thevoluntary participation of greater public,who are directly affected by ecologicalchanges on the one hand and may boostthe influence upon the governmentalauthorities in decision-making process,on the other.

Another influential, non-stateactor on environmental politics, rela-tively autonomous from the state’s con-trol, is the business sector. It is arguedthat about 70 percent of world trade iscontrolled by 500 multinational corpora-tions (MNCs), one percent of whichcontrols half of the total foreign directinvestment.14 On the one hand, it is gen-erally accepted that both local and inter-national business use developing coun-tries as “pollution havens,” by benefitingfrom the lower environmental stan-dards.15 It is also evident that the MNCsbring more advanced technology todeveloping countries compared to thelocal businesses, which can foster thedevelopment of local standards.

On the other hand, in order tokeep their competitive advantage andpromotion in a global market, the busi-ness sector, especially MNCs and TNCs(transnational corporations), wrap them-selves in “green flags” by supporting“eco-efficiency” and “green competi-tiveness”.16 According to the “green andcompetitive” argument, the most suc-cessful companies are those that use themost advanced environmentally sound

76

technologies.17 The positive relationshipbetween the economic and the environ-mental performance of industry was alsoobserved by the greening of the industryliterature emphasizing a wide range ofdeterminants of the environmental per-formance of industry.18 The literaturethat emphasizes which companies arethe sources of pressure in applying envi-ronmental standards is a critical factor insuccessful compliance by other MNCs.

The MNCs’ interest in the envi-ronment has been institutionalizedaround UNCED. The World BusinessCouncil for Sustainable Development(WBCSD) was formed by a group ofapproximately 120 MNCs in 1995.19

The WBCSD lobbies both the Interna-tional Organization for Standardization(ISO) and the World Trade Organization(WTO) to develop environmentallysound standards in industry and trade.Many MNCs have already developedsome “industrial guidelines and codes ofconduct for environmental practices.”20

Therefore, the business sector should beincluded in the analysis of present globalenvironmental politics. This is especiallyvital for the developing and transitionaleconomies, where the regulations are notyet set to counter the negative impact ofnational and foreign business practiceson the ecosystems. With the inclusion ofthe business sector in the national andinternational environmental fora, a part-nership can be formulated for sustain-able development.

At present, the IGOs and ENGOswith their elitist structure and top-downarrangements are still influential in in-ternational and national environmentalpolitics.21 The scope of NGO interactionwith the UN system contributes to theglobal governance at the same time.22

Contrary to the general wisdom, thepower and importance of non-state ac-

tors may not increase at the expense ofstate power. “States do not necessarilylose and in fact often gain through theenhancement of NGO access and par-ticipation.23 Under the present interna-tional system, which is based on sover-eign states, the non-state actors arefounded, maintained, and charged withadvancing state goals in the case ofIGOs, and are under the strict legal scru-tiny of the state actors in the case ofNGOs.24 The state actors have the ulti-mate power of approving all national andinternational actions.25

In fact, international cooperationrequires both the participation of stateand non-state actors in order to effec-tively regulate the private sector as wellas state sector actions. As state actorsface important economic and politicalissues, that are transnational in nature,“effective cooperation is decentralizedand non-hierarchic, a mode of coopera-tion whose possibilities are just begin-ning to be understood.”26 The develop-ment of multi-actor governance in deci-sion-making for sustainable develop-ment stands as an example of this kindof cooperation. Taking the governmentalsector, the business sector, and the NGOsector as major components of politicalinteraction, one can determine four al-ternative modes of interaction amongthese sectors.27 Despite the difficulties,the multiparty environmental govern-ance is the key towards promoting lib-eral and pro-market regimes in devel-oping countries.28 However, there is apotentially negative effect on world civicpolitics as domestic economic, political,and civic organizations integrate into theglobal system.29 Because the globalsystem imposes its own criteria andregulation as the model and the localsystems, due to their financial and tech-nical weakness, generally attempt to

77

adapt themselves to them without ques-tioning if the model fits to their reality. Among other non-state actors,NGOs’ access and participation in envi-ronmental politics are mainly determinedby the states. Even at the Montreal Pro-tocol negotiations, where the NGOs’participation marked a new era of par-ticipation, the governments excluded thenon-state actors from the consultativegroup, by introducing the so-called fo-rum of informal informals.30 In otherwords, NGO participation is dependenton the political actors; however, theNGOs can provide high-quality adviceand support the state’s regulatory prac-tice technically and politically throughparticipation. With the establishment ofthe Global Environmental Facility (GEF)under the initiative of the World Bank todeal specifically with global environ-mental issues, NGOs found a greaterparticipation in the workings of interna-tional fora. 31

The GEF, as the first IGO tospecifically address globalenvironmental issues, mainly climatechange, ozone depletion, biodiversityloss, and maritime pollution,32 includedthe competent and relevant NGOs.33

NGOs are an important partner in thedesign and in the implementation ofGEF projects.34 NGOs are also eligibleto receive financial aid from the GEF’sSmall Grants Programme (SGP)according to the certain criteria.35 Themajor purpose of the GEF SGP is toenhance public participation inenvironmental preservation with an ideaof sustainability. By emphasizing NGOparticipation as way to provide valuableinformation and skills, beneficial to thestates, the GEF has paved the way forexpanding potential participants,including business NGOs. Thus, abroader NGO representation will provide

both a greater flow of information tostates and help critical local actors tojoin international fora.36

Environmental Issues in the Black Sea

One common element that cre-ates more interdependence among na-tions is the threat of a deterioratingglobal environment. National securityand sovereignty concepts have lost im-portance but are being redefined to in-clude environmental consequences.37

This global issue strengthened regionalcooperation for environmental protec-tion. Regionalization includes both defacto regionalization of economic affairson the one hand, and de jure regionali-zation of relevant matters, like the envi-ronment.38 In this regard, regionaliza-tion and globalization are mutually rein-forcing processes, especially with recentagreements, programs, and action plansadopted for regional cooperationschemes from Southeast Asia, the Bal-tics, North America, and the Mediterra-nean Sea.39

The Black Sea occupies a greatbasin strategically situated at thesoutheastern extremity of Europe. Theshores of the Black Sea lie within theterritory of the Russian Federation andUkraine on the north, Georgia on theeast, Turkey on the south, and Bulgariaand Romania on the west. The Black Seaconnects to the distant waters of theAtlantic Ocean by the Bosphorus, theSea of Marmara, the Dardanelles, theAegean Sea, and the Mediterranean Sea.It is permanently without oxygen below150 to 200 meters, accounting for 90percent of its total volume of 537,000cubic kilometers.40

The Black Sea is one of the mostpolluted bodies of water in the world.Pollution mainly comes from the

78

surrounding countries’ runoff, includingrivers, discharges of cities, and industrialwastes and shipping. Its vulnerabilitystems partially from its isolatedgeography and partially from the totalsize of land-based sources of pollution.Among others, eutrophication-over-fertilization of the sea by nutrients fromland-based sources, is the biggestproblem41, leading to the decline of theBlack Sea fisheries. Upstream dams, anddiversions for irrigation and hydropowerreduced the flow and quality of riverwater and eventually increased coastalerosion. Another source of pollution ismarine-based pollution, including oil,garbage from ships, and dumping oftoxic waste.42 Due to development,forestation, and unregulated housing,continuing degradation of the wetlandsscattering around the rim of the BlackSea, could eliminate the natural bufferquality between the polluted rivers andthe Black Sea. For example, since theexplosion of Chernobyl reactor, nuclearparticles have been deposited into theBlack Sea through Dnieper River.

The environmental degradationof the Black Sea has had enormoussocial costs, such as health problems,migration, and unemployment, as well asgreat economic losses, e.g. fisheries.43

With this in mind, any environmentalpolicy should cover primarily humanhealth, the effect of economic activities,like tourism and fishing, and protectionof natural resources.44 In general, theecosystem of the Black Sea will have tobe rehabilitated. To develop asustainable policy for environmentalprotection of the Black Sea, an eligiblecoordinating structure, a long termcommon regional program, aninvestment strategy, and effectivemanagement tools and networks for

exchanging environmental informationare also required.45

Toward a Common Regional Ap-proach: Bucharest Convention andOdessa Declaration

With the idea of central planningwhich emphasized quantity rather thanquality of products, most of the formerSoviet Union states as well as EasternEuropean states, did not pay attention toenvironmental concerns in industry andenergy production.46 Agriculture andhousing also negatively affected thepollution of the Black Sea. After theintroduction of a market economy andthe establishment of the Black SeaEconomic Cooperation (BSEC) with theencouragement of international organi-zations, including the UN and WorldBank, the coastal countries of the BlackSea committed themselves torehabilitating natural resources forsustainable development.47 Article 15 ofthe Summit Declaration on BSECencouraged the participating states totake appropriate steps, includingpromotion of joint projects, for theprotection of the environment,particularly the preservation and theimprovement of environment of theBlack Sea, and the conservation,exploitation, and development of its bio-productive potential.

Realizing the need for closecooperation with competent internationalorganizations based on a concertedregional approach for the protection andenhancement of the marine environmentof the Black Sea, the six borderingcountries48 signed the BucharestConvention on the Protection of theBlack Sea Against Pollution and its threeprotocols49 on 21 April 1992. Within thislegal framework controlling marine

79

pollution, the Black Sea Commissionwith a permanent Secretariat was taskedwith promoting the implementation ofthe Convention and elaborating criteriapertaining to the prevention, reduction,and control of marine pollution (Articles17 and 18). The Convention defines thetypes of pollution (Articles 6-14) and theways of scientific and technicalcooperation and monitoring (Articles 5,15, and 16).

About one year later, theministers responsible for the protectionof the marine environment of the BlackSea coastal states, met in Odessa. In thelight of the UNCED decisions andrecommendations, aiming at theimplementation of Agenda 21 in theBlack Sea region and reasserting theprovisions of Bucharest Convention,under the auspices of UNEP theyadopted the Declaration on theProtection of the Black Sea, known asthe Odessa Ministerial Declaration, on 7April 1993. The Odessa Declarationenhanced the desire to establish explicitenvironmental goals and in anunconstrained timeframe in order toconcentrate national, regional, andinternational resources on the mosteffective measures. As a final step inthis institutional development towardsthe rehabilitation and protection of theBlack Sea ecosystem, the StrategicAction Plan (SAP) was signed by thesix Ministers of the environment inIstanbul on 31 October 1996. Aside fromits technical priorities and requirements,the SAP underlines the importance ofpublic participation, particularly NGOparticipation in environmental decisionmaking (Articles 73-80).

To accomplish the identifiedprinciples, approaches and priority ac-tions, the Odessa Declaration urges bi-lateral and multilateral cooperation, in-

cluding cooperation with relevant inter-national organizations. In this regard, athree-year Program for the Environ-mental Management and Protection ofthe Black Sea, namely the Black SeaEnvironment Programme (BSEP), withthe technical support of UNEP and theparticipation of the other Global Envi-ronment Facility (GEF) partners wassigned on 29 June 1993.50 UNEP andGEF set aside US $9.3 million for threeyears51 and the international communityalso contributed some US $17 million.52

NGO Involvement in the BSEP

The successful implementationof the objectives of the BSEP requiredthe active participation and involvementof a broad range of partners – nationally,regionally, and internationally. NGOswere key actors in this overall process.The BSEP sought to promote closerlinks both between NGOs and thecommunities, and between NGOs andother partners (government agencies,business, etc.), in addition to fosteringcollaboration among NGOs on anational, regional, and internationalbasis. The underlying principle of theBSEP has been the inclusion ofnongovernmental actors, including theprivate sector, local communities, laborunions, non-profit foundations,organized associations, and the public-at-large, into planning, programming,and implementation of environmentalstrategies.53

The development of NGOs in theBlack Sea countries, except in Turkey, isa relatively new phenomenon.Environmental groups in former Eastern-bloc countries were spontaneouslyorganized, single-issue protest groupswithout official approval.54 Foundationsin Turkey have a centuries-old tradition

80

going back to the Ottoman Empire andthat associations also have a long historydating back to the Republican period.55

Although the Turkish NGOs have thesame financial constraints as all NGOsin the region, the Turkish legal systemoffers relatively uncomplicatedprocedures for setting up an NGO. TheTurkish government also providesstructural funds to selective NGOs topromote their activities.

Environmental catastrophe in theformer Soviet Union also reinforcedecological demands with nationalistappeal resulting in the disintegration ofthe Union.56 Recently organized“Ecoglasnot” and/or “Ecology andPeace” movements contributed to thedevelopment of democracy and openedthe political system in these countries.However, due to chronic fundingproblems, environmental groups in thesecountries are loosing their grassrootscharacter and are becoming aprofessional bureaucratic institution withthe support of foreign donor assistance.57

Hence, NGOs’ credible positionbetween the public and the governmentis deteriorating.58 As in the formerSoviet Union, the legal framework forNGO activities and the lack of financialresources have created significantobstacles in many of the Black Seacountries for effective NGOparticipation. Therefore, withouteffective legislation that emphasizes therole of the public and of NGOs, “thedevelopment of NGOs will remainsomewhat erratic and confrontational,not encouraging a partnershipapproach.”59

The BSEP has directed its effortsto support NGO activities in variousareas.60 First of all, the BSEP hassupported NGOs and representativenetworks of NGOs, through capacity

building, by small grant programmes,and by inclusion of NGO delegates intothe BSEP Steering Committee meetingsand Donor Conference. Secondly, theBSEP functioned as a means ofchanneling donors support “for thestrengthening of the Black Sea NGOs.”Thirdly, with the strong commitments ofthe Black Sea Strategic Action Plan toenhance public participation in the BlackSea countries, a new form of partnershipwith various stakeholders including thelocal populations was initiated, parallelto the BSEP’s principles. Finally, theBSEP organized several internationalconferences in which the NGOrepresentatives actively participated.

Thus, the Black Sea NGOslearned from the experiences andactivities of other international NGOnetworks. The publication of a BlackSea NGO Directory, which includedonly those NGOs with a clearcommitment to addressing Black Seaenvironmental issues, also helped theorganizational development and publicrelations of these groups. (See Chart 1.)

In 1993, in Samsun, Turkey, apreliminary meeting was organized bythe UNDP as a first step toward settingup an International Black SeaEnvironmental NGO Forum with theparticipation of Georgia, Romania,Turkey, and Ukraine. Though theundertaking did not bring about theresults anticipated, it was instrumental ininitiating this process and sensitizingNGOs to the above issues. In 1994,several National NGO Fora wereorganized in the Black Sea countries,with support and assistance from theBSEP in collaboration with World Bankand the EU-TACIS programme to enablethe implementation of these activities

Black Sea NGOs included in theenvironmental projects designed by the

81

European Union (EU) as the maincomponent of environmental awareness,participation, and democratization. Thus,the EU, which has been a collateralpartner of the BSEP, through thePhare/TACIS programmes – while thePhare Programme supports democracyfor a stable Europe, the TacisProgramme promotes both democracyand free market economy in the newlyindependent states and Mongolia61 –provided technical assistance andallocated small grants to NGOs.62

In fact, the EU assistance is moresignificant in those Eastern Europeancountries that have applied for EUmembership than those that have not.The Black Sea PHARE 92 RegionalEnvironmental Programme, had alreadyraised public awareness of the activitiesof Romanian and Bulgarian NGOsassociated with environmental issues inthe Black Sea. An international meeting,funded by the PHARE was held inVarna, Bulgaria, from 26-28 June 1994,to exchange results and relateexperiences, improving the flow ofinformation. This in turn created evenmore awareness of the problems facingthe Black Sea and led to arecommendation for further NGOcollaboration. The participants alsoproposed the establishment of nationalfoundations/information centers tosupport and strengthen NGO activities.63

Following the meetings ofnational NGO Fora between June-October 1994, the First Regional NGOForum Meeting was held in Constanza,Romania, between 8-10 November 1994with the participation of therepresentatives of NGOs from Romania,Bulgaria, Georgia, Turkey, Ukraine, andRussia, in addition to representativesfrom Birdlife International, CoalitionClean Baltic, the Danube NGO Forum,

and the International Black Sea Club.64

The participants discussed the nature andscope of the Forum’s structure,cooperation among the multipartitesectors, and the involvement of theinternational community and thenoutlined an agenda for future action.65

Black Sea NGO Forum

The Black Sea NGO Forum is aninformal association of nongovernmentalorganizations in the Black Sea countrieswith the aim to raise awareness of theBlack Sea environmental issues;promote public participation proceduresin decisions which are likely to have animpact on the Black Sea environment;support cooperation and coordinationamong organizations concerned with thestate of the Black Sea environment; anddevelop mechanisms of communication,locally, nationally, and internationallywith regard to Black Sea environmentalrelated aspects.66 Black Sea NGO Fo-rum meeting are held annually shortlybefore the BSEP Steering Committeemeeting with the aim to review and planthe NGO activities, articulate the NGOview on the development of the BSEP,and appoint two NGO representatives ina rotational basis to attend the BSEPSteering Committee meeting and otherregional meetings of relevance. (SeeFigure 1, which is a chart of the Forum.)

Two Black Sea NGO ForumRepresentatives are appointed in arotational basis annually with theresponsibilities to attend the BSEPSteering Committee, representing theNGO positions; work towards a two-waycommunication with the BSEP; presentthe activities of the Black Sea NGOs;coordinate the NGO Forum Focal Pointsactivities; represent internationally theBlack Sea NGO Forum and its

82

objectives; and review and report on theNGO Forum activities and projects.

The Black Sea NGO Forum actsvia working groups in the areas ofenvironmental awareness raising, publicparticipation, communication and infor-mation exchange, environmental ed-ucation, and NGO management training.Specific activities are developed in acoordinated way by the Black Sea FocalPoints in each of the six Black Seariparian countries. Each country hastaken a regional role for one workinggroup. Working Group Focal Points areresponsible for managing regionalactivities and projects as well as ensure atwo-way communication flow with otherlocal and national institutions workingwith the BSEP.

National Black Sea NGO Forummeetings are organized as often asnecessary to review, evaluate, and planNGO activities and projects; outlinelocal and national NGO trends onenvironmental issues; appoint nationalBlack Sea NGO Forum Working GroupFocal Points to support the regionalNGO Forum; and mandate tworepresentatives per country to participateat the regional Black Sea NGO Forum.

National Working Group-FocalPoints are agreed upon and appointed atthe national level in each of the sixBlack Sea countries and for each of theregional working groups in order tosupport organization, management, andimplementation of national and localactivities and projects in the priorityareas identified by the Black Sea NGOForum; provide coordination at nationalscale within the regional framework;provide in-kind logistical support for theBlack Sea NGO Forum; identifyopportunities for activities and projectdevelopment; effectively communicatenationally and internationally; review,

evaluate, and report on the progress atlocal and national scale; and participateat the national Black Sea NGO Forummeetings.67

What has been achieved?

In 1995, the Black Sea NGOswere active not only in strengtheningnational coordination mechanisms, butalso in engaging in the concrete projectssuch as wetlands conservation andmanagement.68 The national Black SeaNGO Forums were organized incollaboration with the World Bank andthe EU Phare/TACIS programmes.These associate partners also supportedthe training and education projects inGeorgia, Romania and Bulgaria.69 Somepilot projects on public awareness in theBlack Sea countries, including a drawingcompetition, and a slide-show, wereimplemented.70

Meanwhile the third Black SeaNGO Forum meeting was organized inGurzof, Crimea, Ukraine, on 16-18October 1995. Some representativesfrom international organizations, namelyCoastwatch Europe and MilieukentaktOost-Europa and from the Ministry ofProtection and Nuclear Safety ofUkraine also attended the meeting. Themeeting confirmed that “the NGOForum will be sustained in the long term,in the form of a network and through theimplementation of common projects.The meeting elected two delegates torepresent the NGO Forum at the BSEPSteering Committee and at any otherregional/international events. Themeeting also decided to implement someshort term projects varying frominfrastructure development to concreteregional projects, like training andeducation on wetlands management.71

The BSEP provided some financial

83

support for five concrete projects whichwere carried out in each country exceptRussia.72

In 1996, the Black Sea NGOsinitiated a series of basin-wide and localNGO training events. Prior to the BlackSea NGO Forum meeting, nationalBlack Sea NGOs organized their annualmeetings to plan the next year’sactivities. The fourth Black Sea NGOForum Meeting organized in Tblisi,Georgia, 27-31 January 1997. The maintask of the Tblisi meeting was “todevelop a basin-wide strategy for NGOinvolvement in the implementation ofthe Black Sea SAP.”73 The Black SeaNGO Forum also participated in theEuropean Seas Conference in Lisbon,Portugal in 1996.

In collaboration with someinternational organizations, such as theKnow How Fund of the UnitedKingdom, the Forum organized a seriesof training workshops on the training oftrainers in public participation tech-niques, project management, and NGOdevelopment skills. Within theframework of NGO Small Grant Pro-gramme two projects on “coastalmanagement” and “Monk Seals” whichwere initiated by the Turkish NGOs,were supported.74 Moreover, Black SeaEnvironment Information, Education,and Resource Centers were founded inVarna, Bulgaria and Constanza,Romania with the support of the EU-Phare programme. To promote publicawareness, an exhibition of children’sdrawings was held in Tblisi, Georgia on15 November 1996. Finally, the FirstInternational Black Sea Action Day(IBSAD), which was first proposed atthe Black Sea NGO Forum meeting in1995, was inaugurated and willhenceforth be celebrated on 31 October

on the anniversary of the signing of theBlack Sea Strategic Action Plan.75

In coordination with the BSEP-PCU (Program Coordinating Unit) andthe UNDP Field Offices, all six coastalBlack Sea countries organized broadmedia coverage on national and locallevels “to raise public awareness of thenature and scope of the Black Sea SAPand mobilize the coastal municipalauthorities and the NGOs to participatein the implementation of the plan.”76

During the final year of the BSEP,the Black Sea NGOs were concernedabout more practical activities such asthe preparation of the national BS SAP,Integrated Coastal Zone management(ICZM), Geographic Information Sys-tem (GIS), and monitoring as well aseducation and public awareness.77

Training on public participation and or-ganizational management for BS NGOswas given a special emphasis in the 1997activities. In February 1997, the FieldStudies Council and the EcologicalYouth of Romania (TER) organized afour-day training program for NGO offi-cers from around the Black Sea.78 As afollow up activity, between May andSeptember 1997, six national seminarswe`re funded by the EnvironmentalKnow How Fund of the UK, the BSEPand the British Council, to increase ca-pacity building in public participation.

Within the framework of the GEF-SGP, the national NGOs implementedseveral projects of public awareness onBlack Sea environmental issues as rec-ognized by the Black Sea NGO Forumheld in Tblisi in 1997.79 The SecondInternational Black Sea Day took placeon 31 October 1997 with several cam-paigns, competitions, and eventsthroughout the six countries. To encour-age the Black Sea-SAP, the BulgarianBlack Sea Environmental Educational

84

and Resource Center and the Environ-mental Information and Sustainable De-velopment Center (“Rio”) of Georgiainitiated public hearings and publicationcampaigns simultaneously.80

The Black Sea NGO Forum washeld in Varna, Bulgaria on 6-7 Decem-ber 1997. The NGO representatives ex-pressed their ideas on the further institu-tionalization of the Forum, especiallywith the need for a secretariat, a fundingstrategy, and more effective networking.The main concern of the representativeswas what would happen to the Forumafter the termination of the BSEP PCU,since the Istanbul Commission wouldconcentrate on governmental activities(BS-SAP Article 18-25) when it re-placed the PCU. Hence, the NGOs willneed their own secretariat. However, therepresentatives did not reach a commonstrategy about the secretariat and its roleand responsibilities.

Another substantive questionraised during the Forum was “who willfund the NGOs in the future?” Havingleft these questions to uncertainty, theForum also appointed six workinggroups coordinated by members fromfive countries; the Black Sea ActionPlan, Environmental Education/PublicAwareness, the Forum, ICZM, oil/gasextraction, and transportation and riverproblems including the Danube Basin.81

However, the PCU decided to help withfundraising and information for the con-tinuation of the Forum activities in thefuture. The year 1998 was a critical pe-riod for the Forum. On the one hand, un-certainty about the future institutionali-zation of the Forum and on the othermonetary issues led some NGOs to de-velop new strategies regarding the coor-dination, communication, and coopera-tion of the NGOs in the Black Sea.

Quo Vadis the Black Sea NGOs ?

After four years of the BSEPsupporting developments originatingfrom the initial networking of the BlackSea NGOs, there has been a growingdissatisfaction with communication,implementation, vision, management,and finance.82 Although many objectiveshave been achived and a variety ofactivities were organized in a very shortperiod of time by the BSEP and itspartners, some of the NGOrepresentatives expressed the opinionthat“unfortunately there is no action,only meetings.”83 Another urgentquestion raised by the Black Sea NGOswas future of the Forum after theBSEP? “The support of the BSEP hasbeen, and will continue to be, vitallyimportant, “but it was the time toorganize themselves independently.84

The first initiative was led by theSociety of Peace with Nature, a Turkish-based NGO, which organized a series ofmeetings, including the Black Sea Unityfor Strength Conference in Istanbul,Turkey on 22-24 June 1998.85 About 27NGO representatives, businessmen,academics, and representatives of themunicipalities from around the BlackSea countries came together anddeclared the establishment of theNetwork of “Black Sea Partners,” as aninternational NGO with the aim offorming “a regional network ofinformation exchange and commonaction for supporting the rehabilitation,restoration, and protection of the BlackSea within an ecologically sustainableframework.”86 The main structure of theInternational Black Sea Partners (IBSP)included a regional office, a SteeringCommittee, and an Assembly in for bothstate and non-state actors includingunions, academicians, businessmen, and

85

muncipalities to be represented equallyat national and international levels.

Following these activites, the BSNGO Forum was convened in Istanbulon 25-27 June 1998. During the meeting,the legal entity of the Forum wasquestioned. Actually it was the firstBlack Sea NGO meeting which was notfunded by the BSEP and its partners. Onthe other hand, the participation of therepresentatives of CounterpartInternational (CI) at these meetings wasnot a surprise because the President ofCI, Stanley Hoise, had expressed aninterest in forming a partnership with theBlack Sea NGO Forum back in 1997,when he attended the Black Sea in CrisisSymposium.87 CI, a Washington D.C.-based non-profit, international humandevelopment organization, wasinterested in establishing an office in theregion with the primary task ofcoordinating forum activities,communications, and fundraising andNGO capacity building. It already hadongoing programs in Georgia, Russia,and Ukraine based on partnership.

During the Forum meeting, ageneral agreement on a possibleoperational structure for a CI office wasreached. However, only Turkey andUkraine supported the idea of integratingthe Forum into the Black Sea Partners.88

The Forum also decided to providetraining and technical assistance to theBlack Sea NGOs, Moreover, eachcountry, except for Russia was entitledwithin the framework of Black SeaAction Day to organize special hotspotsareas, which could be funded by theWorld Bank.89

Another internationalcooperation initiative was led byBulgarian NGOs. During the Black SeaNGO Forum of 1998 it was announcedthat the TIME (This is My Environment)

Foundation from Bulgaria with thesupport of a Dutch development agencyNOVIB, mainly involved in catalyzingNGO lobbying efforts by using the EU’ssocial funds, proposed an internationalworkshop to strengthen BS NGOnetworking and lobbying capabilities.90

Following the Forum meeting, aseminar for Black Sea NGOrepresentatives organized by the TIME-Foundation with the support of NOVIBwas held in Varna on 1-5 September1998. About 23 representatives of the 10Black Sea NGOs from the Black Seacountries participated in the seminar.The workshop carried “the need ofcreating a new comprehensive andindependent international structure toraise the efficiency of NGOnetworking.”91 The NOVIB had alreadybeen supporting some NGO activites inBulgaria, Georgia, and Ukraine andpromised to find funds for Romania,Russia, and Turkey. According to oneTurkish NGO representative, theNOVIB later announced that it couldprovide some fund for other countries,too.92 CI also attended the meeting. Theworkshop selected the contact person foreach country to organize and conductnational NGO meetings.

The country meetings organizedduring November and December 1998covered the discussion and drafting ofNational NGO Action Plans forPreservation of the Black Sea, Bylaws ofthe Network, nominations of countryboard members, discussion of thepossibilities for fundraising at thenational level and operational and legalaspects of the Network functioning at thenational level. The international processbegan with a draft of the Network Bylawand the first regional board meeting,which was convened in Sofia, Bulgariaon 29-31 January 1999, adopted its final

86

version. Thus, an independentInternational Black Sea NGO Networkwith the participation of ten individualrepresentatives of the NGO communityin the five BS countries, namelyBulgaria, Romania, Ukraine, Russia, andGeorgia was eventually founded (BylawChapter I, Article 1).

Although the Turkish NGOsattended the Varna meeting, the Turkishnational delegation was opposed to thisinitiative from the beginning sinceneither the TIME foundation nor theNOVIB had indicated any interest in theinitial years of the Forum. Additionally,they opposed the initiative since theNetwork was being based on a purelybureaucratic structure with high costsand randomly selected representatives ofthe NGOs from the region whoconsidered the Forum inactive anddecided to form a new establishment.93

Some of the representatives of theTurkish NGOs also claimed that whilethe EU politically supports this initiativefor its own purposes that petroleumcompanies, like Chevron, were supposedto penetrate the region through NGOactivities and the CI might have acted asits partner. Then the Turkish NGOsdecided to be represented at the Networkas observers. With these developments,the Turkish NGOs met in June 1999 andselected a Steering Committee for anational NGO Forum consisting of sevenpersons, dealing with the coordination,communication, and cooperation.

The Network whose operatingRegional Office was located in Varna,Bulgaria, has been under review by theBulgarian legislature. The Network wasbased on Country Network Offices, aRegional Office, a Country Assembly, aNetwork Board and a General Assembly(Bylaw Chapter V), as the operationalstructure. Although an NGO from one

of the Black Sea countries can applythrough the respective country NetworkOffice, a non-Black Sea organization isentitled to apply for membership directlyto the Regional Office and the Board hasto certify new members within one week(Bylaw Chapter IV, Articles 2,5,7).

Concerning the membership of anon-Black Sea organization in theNetwork, it is not clear how can thismember be represented at the decision-making process. This may beproblematic if and when a non-BlackSea organization, like NOVIB or CI,who essentially raised funds to theNetwork, wants to be a member of theNetwork.Until now, the Network mainly dealtwith the setup activities for the RegionalOffice. Morover, two issues of amonthly Network Newsletter weredistributed. Besides, four NGO projectson “green tourism” with the participationof two Bulgarian, one Georgian oneUkranian NGO were funded as pilotprojects for sustainable local practices.

The establishment of theNetwork was supposed to create adegree of disintegration in the Black SeaNGO community as pro-Forum and pro-Network groups mainly. The Networkleaders explained the discrepancy amongthe Turkish NGOs towards the Networkorganization by indicating that there is adivision between the resourceful, largeNGOs based in Istanbul and thoselacking resources that are small BlackSea coast NGOs. The former hadestablished close links with BSEP PIU.94

It is also argued that issues of personalpriorities in environmental concern,money, leadership problems led to thisconfrontation between Bulgarian andTurkish NGOs. Others argued for a“wait and see” policy, thereby taking noaction on the Black Sea developments.

87

Meanwhile, Sergey Arzumanov, anNGO trainee at the BSEP, mentionedthat the BSEP, as the coordinating unit,has good relations with the TIMEFoundation as well as other NGOs andthe Network will understand that theBSEP's goals overlap with the Network.

Aside from the major oppositionof the Turkish NGOs towards the Net-work, there were other significant objec-tions about the Network by the widerand more experienced NGO communityin the region. First, the Forum activistsdenied the founding premise of the Net-work (i.e., that the Forum was inactiveand unsuccessful, therefore another or-ganization was needed). Secondly, noneof the National Forum member organi-zations attended the Network but rather aselect group of NGOs, who expressedtheir support for and joined the Network.Financial reasons may have been a cru-cial factor among others also. In otherwords, the Network stood as a new or-ganization denouncing the experience ofthe Forum. Thirdly, two Dutch organi-zations as well as NOVIB support theNetwork financially and the Interna-tional Center for Water Studies (ICWS)strongly backs the initiative. The latterhas been a member of the Consortiumthat was managing the EU Phare/TACISprogrammes in the region, especially inBulgaria and Romania.95 Fourthly, thereis a high possibility that the “lion’s sharewill go toward overhead and organiza-tional costs” in light of past experienceswith the EU’s Phare/TACIS projects.Finally, there were serious objections tothe management style of the Network:“information is disseminated after thedecision is taken.”96

General Evaluation and Prospects

The BSEP provided an opportu-nity for public participation and partner-ship dialogue among the different sec-tors of the society. The principal effortsof the BSEP for NGO strengtheningwere directed toward organizational de-velopment through national NGO fo-rums, capacity building through know-how exchanges and training, and part-nerships through project developments.97

Aside from its limited financial supportto the NGO community, the GEF-BSEPchanneled several donors, including theEU TACIS/Phare Programmes. TheGEF small grants program also sup-ported the Black Sea-NGOs in dealingwith short-term practical issues, likeICZM. The BSEP, in collaboration withother governmental and intergovern-mental organizations, integrated the lo-cal NGOs into an international eventranging from public awareness, to cam-paigns and summer schools. And, lastbut not the least, the publication of theBSEP-NGO Directory with its limitedentry, facilitated the identification ofcommunication problems.

In short, the BSEP, in a verycost-effective way, let the BS-NGOs beinvolved in a process of participationand partnership. Recently emerging ini-tiatives towards restructuring the scopeand mandate of the Black Sea NGOs in-dicate the fact that now the “ball is intheir court” in enhancing environmentalmanagement in the Black Sea coun-tries98. Naturally they face several obsta-cles as well as opportunities in dealingwith future objectives.

According to the findings of aquestionnaire survey aimed at assessingthe impact of the BSEP-NGO activitiesamong the Black Sea NGOs, the majorconstraint was the lack of effectivecommunication to facilitate the flow ofinformation between local, regional, and

88

national NGOs.99 The response rate tothis survey, seven out of 40 NGOsproves that there are serious infrastruc-tural problems concerning communica-tion in this region. Secondly, fundrais-ing and project development was con-sidered as vital to the survival and inte-gration of the NGOs in the region. Onseveral occasions, the representatives ofthe Black Sea NGOs raised similarviews.100

Nongovernmental organizationsare a new phenomenon in the region.There is also a great diversity in terms ofhistory, structure, and objectives of theNGOs from country to country. With thesupport of the Western funds, the num-ber of NGOs, who claim to represent“the public opinion” has been increasedamazingly.101 In reality, however, thereare very few truly “grassroots” andcommunity based-organizations in theregion.”102 At present there are 116ENGOs, which were registered in theBlack Sea NGO Directory.103 This doesnot reflect the actual number of NGOs inthe region, but instead that those who arespecifically interested in the environ-mental issues in the Black Sea are verylimited. There is a growing number ofNGO participation from Georgia,Ukraine, and Romania through the BSEPactivities. Surprisingly the RussianNGOs are not represented sufficiently inthe Directory. Unfortunately, due to lackof communication or irregularity of theNGO operations in this region, the num-ber of NGO entries in the next edition ofthe Directory will radically drop down to65. This is also indicative of the fact thatespecially small and coastal Black SeaNGOs really need help to survive.

NGOs are key actors in gatheringand mobilizing communities. Althoughall the Black Sea countries adopted leg-islation allowing the formation and op-

eration of NGOs, especially since gov-ernmental authorities are unwilling toinclude them into the decision-makingprocess104 the greater public is suspi-cious of NGO activities. Among otherthings, registration of associations inmost of the former and eastern Europeancountries is prohibitively expensive andbureaucratic.105 Therefore, they have alimited capacity for membership. Byimplementing IBSAD and training in thepublic participation projects, the BlackSea NGOs showed their potentials.However, the lack of cooperation amongNGOs made them fail to “involve in theenvironmental decision-making process”effectively.106

The 1990/91 World Values Sur-vey107 indicated that three of the BlackSea countries, namely Bulgaria, Russia,and Turkey, listed at the higher rankingsconcerning “public support for environ-mental protection.” According to thisstudy, there is a moderate or no relation-ship between values and support for en-vironmental protection in these coun-tries, but natural disasters, like Cherno-byl have made the public more aware ofenvironmental problems. In fact, non-state actors, including business and thereligious institutions, have been activelytrying to raise public awareness con-cerning environmental problems in theBlack Sea Region. On the one hand,TURMEPA (the Turkish Maritime Envi-ronment Protection Association) and itsGreek counterpart HELMEPA organizedthe “Revelation and Environment”Cruise in September 1995 as a privatesector involvement. Later, from 20-28September 1997, about 300 religiousleaders, scientists, decision-makers, andenvironmentalists accompanied by jour-nalists assembled “the Black Sea in Cri-sis” symposium.108 Following a boat tripvisiting several Black Sea ports to publi-

89

cize the environmental problems of theBlack Sea, the symposium made certaincommitments towards future action, in-cluding fund-raising, public awareness,an education center for Orthodox clergy,and strong support for Black Sea SAP.

Despite the widening and deep-ening of the environmental concerns inthe region, ineffective management bythe state actors on environmental issueswith the idea of rapid economic growthand national security,109 constitute a se-rious obstacle towards achieving sus-tainable policies. To overcome this ob-stacle, NGOs may develop multi-stakeholder projects at national and re-gional levels and replicate them. Thus,while these projects stimulate NGOs towork together instead of competing forlimited funds, they may promote publicinvolvement in the decision-making pro-cess. In other words, BS-NGOs withtheir distinctive peculiarities and in col-laboration with community-based or-ganizations and the public can enhancepublic participation, as it was stressed inthe Black Sea SAP.

At present, governmentalauthorities must legitimize NGOs andencourage their activities, and includethem into the preparation of the NationalBlack Sea SAPs. Mass media will alsoplay a critical role in this process. Agood example of this has been recentlyexperienced in Turkey. A spontaneouscivic resistance developed against thegovernmental authorities and the EURO-GOLD a multinational corporation inBergama, Izmir when the newspapercoverage warned the people about goldmining with cyanide.110 Hence, not onlymust the governmental authorities (asthe signatories of the international envi-ronmental treaties), adhere to the inter-national requirements, but so must theforeign investors and local businesses

also comply with the requirement. Theprinciples of environmental ethics are apart of the global society, making a dis-tinction between short-term and long-term profits.

Although there is no reliable in-ventory indicating how many of thebusinesses, either local, national, ormultinational, in the Black Sea countriesare abiding by environmentally soundtechnologies or taking environmentalprecautions, it is obvious that both gov-ernmental and private enterprises are themain polluters in the region. The BlackSea NGO community has been integrat-ing with the global environmental net-work slowly but gradually. However,due to their chronic struggle for fundingto survive, some of them are losing theirgrassroots origins and transformingthemselves into bureaucratic organiza-tions. International institutions’ grantsdid not reach to local NGOs fully, sim-ply because of technical reasons, like thesize of these NGOs.

Meanwhile there is a growinginterest in this region because of itstransregional location and the naturalresources in the neigh boring countries,such as oil and natural gas. Both gov-ernmental and IGOs, MNCs and inter-national NGOs with special objectives,have been increasingly penetrating theregion’s countries. The Black SeaNGOs, which are hungry for money,easily become a partner of the interna-tional initiatives to overcome “bureau-cratic” obstacles in these countries. Inother words, the concept of an NGO hasbeen loosing its essential meaning inthese countries, and NGOs have deterio-rated.

The EU, through its Phare/TACIS-funded projects, has alreadycontributed to the public awareness ac-tivities of the Black Sea NGOs, espe-

90

cially in Bulgaria and Romania. How-ever, some NGOS argued “not only theEU assistance was not channeled to theBS NGO Forum, but regretfully, the Fo-rum representatives in many countriesfound it almost impossible to get infor-mation about what is going on.”111

Moreover, the approximation of the EUEnvironmental legislation by the 10Central and Eastern European countries,including Bulgaria and Romania, whohave association agreements with the EUwere completed.112

Furthermore, a new EU Phare/TACIS-funded project, entitled the“Funds for the Black Sea EnvironmentalProgramme” was launched. It cost 1.5million ECUs and will run for 18 monthson a wide range of activities in fivecoastal Black Sea countries, excludingTurkey. The ICWS, which is familiarwith the region, will manage the coastalzone management program in consulta-tion with other European firms.113 Asub-component of this program con-cerning Environmental Education andPublic Awareness cost 250,000 ECUsand was coordinated by the TIME-Foundation in Bulgaria, Romania, andGeorgia. Both the priorities of the EU,like Black Sea tourism and the contrac-tor/subcontractor relations in this chainremind us of the traces of “ecoimperi-alism.” In other words, the EU both pre-pares, organizes, and finances the entireenvironmental programs for the regionwhose countries, thus, have less freedomto set their own priorities.114

This is not particular to the EU-led programs. There is always the dangerof NGOs losing autonomy vis-B-vis thedonor institution, in formulating policies.Aid plays an important role in the crea-tion of environmental regimes and forcesNGOs to promote far-reaching objec-tives such as democracy and good gov-

ernance, well outside the scope of theirenvironmental goals. Because of thegovernmental weaknesses in most of thetransitional countries, the internationalorganizations have been able to moreeasily to penetrate these countriesthrough partnerships with the localNGOs rather than the government. It isopen to question, however, to what ex-tent the priorities of the donor and theenvironmental concerns of local publiccan be matched. In other words, con-cerns of the donor and the recipient, in-cluding NGOs, are very important aswell as capacity and contracting in theeffectiveness of environmental aid.115

International organizations mayhelp Black Sea NGOs in enhancing theircapacity in promoting public awareness,networking, and training. Foreign donorscan solve the difficulties experienced bylocal NGOs in harmonizing activities byinvesting in infrastructure and computertechnologies for local NGO administra-tors and can help to increase technicalskills concerning networking. Simplyput, foreign institutions should supply anew form of NGO small grant programs.Projects with a great amount of moneymay not be compatible with the capacityof the NGOs, may create competitionamong the NGOs, and support bureau-cratic tendencies, which is the mainhandicap of NGOs as volunteer organi-zations.

Instead of subcontracting NGOsin great environmental projects, foreigndonors may request the inclusion ofNGOs with them on an observer status.Otherwise, NGOs may lose their essen-tial identity and become a real entrepre-neur. Therefore, the international effortmust be channeled to improve the ca-pacity of small NGOs, not to use them assubcontractor of super NGOs of the re-gion with high tech and bureaucratic

91

structure. As a regional intergovern-mental organization, the BSEP Secre-tariat and the Parliamentary Assembly ofthe BSEC (PABSEC) through its sub-committees have greater responsibility tostrengthen NGOs’ participation into thedecision-making process as it was con-ditioned by the Ministerial Declarationsand the Black Sea SAP.

If money were the sole problem,the Black Sea NGOs might encouragelocal individuals and businesses to do-nate money to local NGOs. The IBSADcan be an effective mechanism for fund-raising activities. In return, the BlackSea NGOs must function as vehicle tovoice public demands and build a massappeal on practical not theoreticalgrounds. Most of the Black Sea NGOshave been either established or run byacademic people. Therefore, their activi-ties were limited to their own objectivesand not disseminated to the greater pub-lic. In this respect, NGOs, by gainingsufficient infrastructure facilities, mustlink business, academia, central and lo-cal governments, media, and other inter-ested parties and inform them “what ishappening in the region.” According to

the interviews led by the author of thisarticle during the last three years theBlack Sea NGOs are hungry for infor-mation as well as in need of money.Through the regular and reliable flow ofinformation, the Black Sea NGOs canperform their major function of publicawareness, education and training. Also,they may keep a wider network of multistakeholders, providing money, skillsand expertise, at local and regional level.

Finally, NGO activities primarilyrequire dedication, unity, and coopera-tion. Recent NGO developments in theregion, due to the uncertainty about theBSEP activities and financial con-straints, signaled a temporary disinte-gration. The Black Sea NGOs have suf-ficient experience to move forward. Thefuture of the Black Sea environmentneeds impersonal, improvised, and inte-grated efforts of the regional non-stateactors. In this respect, not only ENGOs,but also scientific communities, localadministrations, mass media, and espe-cially business circles are to be inte-grated into the decision-making process

effectively.

Acknowledgments

I acknowledge the members of the Environmental Change and Security Project of theWoodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars who made this article possible. I es-pecially wish to thank gmit Çilingiroglu, Gul Goktepe, Nato Kirvalidze, VeleslavaTzakova, Tanay S. Uyar, and the staff of the Global Environmental Facility-Black SeaEnvironmental Program Coordinating Unit in Istanbul for their information and com-ments on the recent NGO developments in the region.

92

Chart 1

BLACK SEA ENVIRONMENTAL NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS*

NAMES OF THE ENGOs A B C D

BULGARIA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 12 13 14 15

Bulgarian National Association on Water Quality 6 2 NA YBulgarian Society for the Protection of Birds 12 5 1,3,4,5 Y Y Y Y Y YBulgarian Society of Scientists-Varna 8 4 1,4 Y YBurgas Black Sea Club 7 NA NA YBurgas Branch of Bulgarian Nature ExploringSociety

NA 1 1,4 Y

Burgas Ecological Association 8 NA NABurgas Ecology Man Foundation 8 1 2 Y YBurgas Movement of Ecoglasnot 8 1 3,4 Y YCentre of Environmental Information and Educa-tion

8 1 3,4 Y Y

ECO-CLUB 2000 5 1 NA Y YEnvironmental Saving of Burgas Society 10 3 1 YGreen Balkans -Burgas 9 1 NA YIndependent Society Ecoglasnot Burgas 10 3 3,4 YIndependent Society Ecoglasnot Varna 11 NA NA YNational Ecological Club 10 2 6Society for Bird Protection-Varna 12 1 3,4 Y Y YStudent's Center for International Cooperation 5 1 1,3 Y YVarna Movement of Ecoglasnot 7 1 1,3,4 Y YR. of GEORGIAAcharian Association of Young Ecologists 8 3 NA Y YAdjara Regional Organisation of Georgia Greens 10 3 1,2,3 Y YBlack Sea Youth EcoAcademy 4 1 5 Y YCentre for Studies and Protection of Small Ani-mals

6 1 2,3 Y Y

Eco-Centre 6 1 2 YEco-Film Studio 5 1 2 YEcological Law Club 5 1 2 Y YEnvironmental Information Centre 4 2 2 YEnvironmental Protection and Cultural RevivalFund “Vazi”

4 1 1,2,3 Y Y

Environmental Relief Impulse 6 1 2 YFund "Mission" 5 1 2 Y YG.Nikoladze Alpinist Club of Tbilisi State U. 45 3 1,7 Y YGeorgia Greens 12 5 1,2,3 YGeorgia Youth EcoMovement 7 3 2 YGeorgian Geoinformation Centre “G. Info” 6 1 5 YGeorgian Society Tusheti 5 NA 2 YHistorical Ecological Assoc. of Zugdidi Mafalu 5 1 YHuman Ecology Centre 6 3 1,2,3 Y Y YJvari (Cross) 5 NA 2 Y YMarine Association "Poseidon" 6 2 1,2,3,8 Y YRegional Fund for Environmental Protection 8 NA 2 Y YSitsotskhle (Life) 5 NA NA Y Y Y YSociety of Friends of Nature “Tskhratskaro” 5 1 2 YSociety of Young Ecologists “ Green Cross” 5 1 2 Y Y YThe Biological Farming Association “Elkana” 7 1 1,2 Y Y YThe Ecological Group of Terjola 5 1 2 YThe Georgian Centre of Transition EconomicSystems and Sustainable Development

6 1 2 Y Y

Vashlovani 6 1 2 YVita Center 1 2 Y YROMANIAAnaconda 7 1 1,6 YDanube Delta Friends Foundation 9 4 5 Y Y

93

Earth-Kind Romania NA NA NA Y Y YEco Black Sea 7 NA NA Y Y Y YEco Mar 8 1 3,6 Y YEcological Association of Divers-DOLPHIN 10 NA NA Y YEcological Cooperation Group 10 1 5,9 YEcological Society for Study and Protection ofWild Flora and Fauna

7 1 5 Y Y Y Y Y

Friends of the Earth-Galati 9 1 NA YGroup for Underwater and Speleological Explora-tions

19 1 2,3,6,10 Y Y Y Y Y

Mare Nostrum 7 1 5,6 e Y YOceanic Club Constanta 8 2 3,6 Y YPro- Delta Club 8 1 NA Y Y YRom Coast 6 1 NA Y YRomanian Foundation for Democracy NA NA NA Y Y YRomanian Naval Leaque-Contanta Branch 10 4 1,6 Y YRomanian Ornithological Society 10 5 1,3,6,11 Y Y YThe Black Sea University Foundation 8 NA NA YThe Ecologist Youth of Romania 10 4 5,7 Y Y Y Y Y YThe Silvic Progress Society 114 4 NA Y Y Y Y YRUSSIAAcvatori 6 1 NoneCenter for Information and Environmental Mod-eling of Rostov State University

9 1 5,7 Y Y Y

Cooperative Complex Geophysical ExpeditionMagnitude

12 1 NA Y

Environmental Centre of Sochi “ ECOS” 6 1 NA Y Y YGreen Don 11 1 None Y Y YPublic Committee of Economical Control 12 1 NAThe Fund of Alternative development of the Azovand Black Sea Basin

10 1 NA Y Y

Ecos 6 1 NA YTURKEYEnvironment Foundation of Turkey 22 1 5,7,12 Y YEnvironmental Protection Association of Zon-guldak

9 4 NA Y Y Y Y

Foundation for the Protection and Promotion ofCultural and Environmental Heritage

9 1 4 Y Y

Society for the Protection of Nature 15 5 1,3,5,6,13,14 Y Y Y YSociety of Peace with Nature 7 3 1,3,5,13 Y Y Y YSOS Environment Volunteers-Turkish 10 5 1,3 Y Y Y YThe Black Sea Environmentalists 8 3 1 Y Y YThe Research Association of Rural Environmentand Forestry

12 1 1,3,4 Y Y Y

The Turkish Foundation for Combatting SoilErosion, reforestation, protection of natural habitat

8 5 5,15 Y Y Y

Trabzon Province and Countries Education, Cul-ture and Society

14 3 1,3 Y Y Y Y Y

Turkish Association for the Protection of Nature 45 5 1,3 Y Y YTurkish Environment and Woodland ProtectionSociety

28 NA 1,3,4,7 Y

Turkish Environmental Protection and ResearchFoundation

9 1 3,7 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Turmepa 6 1 1,3 Y Y Y Y YWildlife Conservation Society of Samsun 20 3 1,3 Y YUKRAINEAssociation EUROCOAST-Ukraine 6 3 NA Y Y Y Y YCrimea Republic Association "Ecology and Peace" 12 3 2,4,6 Y Y Y Y YDniepropetrovsk " Green World" 12 3 NA Y Y Y Y Y Y Y YEcological Foundation-NGO 8 3 6,11 Y YEcoPravo 7 1 2 Y Y Y YEcoPravo East, Filiation Kharkiv 7 1 2 Y Y YEcoPravo-Lviv 6 1 5 Y Y Y YEnvinet-Ukraine 6 1 2 Y YGreenpeace Ukraine 10 5 3 Y Y Y Y Y Y

94

Independent Ecological Security Service 5 1 2,8 Y Y Y Y YINECO of the National Ecological Centre ofUkraine

7 1 16 Y Y Y Y Y

Institute of Ecology, South Branch 5 1 2,4 Y Y YKherson-Ecocentre Organization 9 1 3 Y Y Y YMovement for the Black and Azov Seas Salvage 9 4 1 Y Y YNatural Heritage Fund 8 1 2,6 Y Y YNews Agency "Echo-Vostok" 8 1 2 Y Y YNikolaev Regional Environmental Association 12 2 2 Y Y Y Y YNikopol Association "Zeleny Svit" 11 3 2,3 Y Y YNongovernmental Ecomonitoring Station 7 1 2,6 Y YOdessa Socio-Ecological Union 13 1 2,3,6 Y Y Y YOut School Profile Association 19 1 1,2 Y Y YSevastopol branch, Geographic Society of Ukraine 14 3 2 Y Y YThe Youth Environmental Organization 12 1 1 Y Y YUkranian Union for Bird Conservation 6 5 1,6 Y Y Y Y YUkranian Ecological Academy, BlackSea Regional 6 1 11 Y Y Y Y YUnicorn Environmental Publishers 8 1 2,7 Y Y YUnion Rescuing from Chernobyl UEA Greenworld 11 4 2 Y Y Y YWorld of Water 6 3 NA Y Y Y Y YYalta Regional Dept of Crimea R. Association 11 3 6 Y Y Y Y YZaporozhye Ecological Club 10 2 3 Y Y Y YZaporozhye Nature Education Centre XXI century 7 1 7 Y Y

EXPLANATIONS: * These ENGO are listed in GEF-BSEP, Black Sea NGO Directory, 1995 and 1996 editions, which include onlythose NGOs or ENGOs who responded the questionnaire survey from the participating countries.A. Life-span in terms of yearsB. Number of Members: (1) 1-50; (2) 51-100; (3) 101-500; (4) 501-1000; (5) more than 1000C. Funding sources: (1) Membership Due; (2) Grant; (3) Donation; (4) Project; (5) International sources; (6) Sponsors; (7) Self

Financing; (8) Other Income; (9) Cotizations; (10) Services; (11) Contracts; (12) Income from the assets; (13) Fund Raising Ac-tivities; (14) Miscellaneous; (15) Private Sector; (16) Governmental Agencies

D. Activities: (1)Education, training, workshops, institutional development, organizing summer schools; (2) Public Awarenesscampaigns, lobbying, international cooperation, media campaign; (3) Information, data, publication, research, survey; (4) Policydevelopment and regional development; (5) Ecotourism, camps, diving; (6) Monitoring; (7) Legal assistance, environmentallegislation; (8) Project; (9) Protection, preservation, biodiversity; (10) Water treatment, marine culture, naval culture, fisheries,ships related environmental engineering; (11) Determination of OA priority areas; (12) Coastal management dynamics and (13)Forestry

E. (NA) not available

95

References

Auer, Matthew. “Rescaling Global Environmental Affairs.” Paper presented at FortiethAnnual Conference of the International Studies Association, Washington, DC,16-20 February 1999.

Black Sea NGO Forum. Draft Minutes of the BS NGO Forum, Varna, Bulgaria, 6-7December 1997.

_________.Draft Minutes of the Black Sea NGO Forum, Istanbul, Turkey, 25-27 June1998.

Brooks, Anathea L. and Stacy D. VanDeveer eds., Saving the Seas: Values, Scientist, andInternational Governance, College Park, Md.: Maryland Sea Grant College,1997.

Black Sea Environmetnal Programme. Saving the Black Sea, Official newsletter of theGEF-BSEP, Issue 1, 1994.

_________.Black Sea NGO Directory, Bucharest, Romania, 1996._________.Saving the Black Sea, Official newsletter of the GEF-BSEP, Issue 5, 1998a._________.Saving the Black Sea, Official newsletter of the GEF-BSEP, Issue 6, 1998b.Chatterjee, Pratap and Matthias Finger. The Earth Brokers, Power Politics and World

Development, London: Routledge, 1994.Conca, Ken. “Greening the UN: Environmental Organizations and UN System,” NGOs,

the UN, and Global Governance, Thomas G. Weiss and Leon Gordenker, Jr.,eds., Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 103-20, 1996.

Council of Europe and PABSEC. Final Declaration, First International ParliamentaryConference on the Environmental Protection of the Black Sea, Istanbul, 10-12July 1996.

Çilingiroglu, Ümit, Interview notes, 1996.Çilingiroglu, Ümit and Beyhan Özarslan. “Black Sea International Unity for Strength,”

Saving the Black Sea, Official newsletter of the GEF-BSEP Issue 6, 1998.Çilingiroglu, Ümit and Gio Dartsimelia. A letter from International BS NGO Forum

Representatives, 27 November 1998a.Çilingiroglu, Ümit. Address to the 6th Steering Committee Meeting of BSEP, Istanbul,

Turkey, December 1998b.De Bardeleben, Joan and John Hannigant, eds., Environmental Security and Quality after

Communium: Eastern Europe and the Soviet Successor States, Boulder, CO:Westview Press, 1995.

Eccleston, Bernard. “Does North-South Collaboration Enhance NGO Influence onDeforestation Policies in Malaysia and Indonesia?” The Journal ofCommonwealth and Comparative Politics, 34:1 (1996): 66-89.

El-Ashry, Mohammed T. (1997). Remarks at the April 1997 NGO Consultationhttp://www.gefweb.org/mtengo97.htm.

European Union. The Phare Programme, http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg1a/phare/index.htmand The Tacis Homepage-The European Commisson-DG1A,http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg1a/tacis/index.htm, 1999.

Feshbach, Murray and Alfred Friendly, Jr. Ecocide In the USSR, Health and NatureUnder Siege, New York: Basic Books, 1992.

96

Finger, Matthias and James Kilcoyne. “Multinationals Organizing to Save the GlobalEnvironment.” Paper presented at the 37th Annual Convention of theInternational Studies Association, San Diego, CA, 16-19 April 1996.

Fuchs, Doris and Daniel Mazmanian. “The Greening of Industry: Needs of the Field”Business Strategy and the Environment, 7 (1998): 193-203.

Global Environmental Facility. Black Sea NGO Forum Meeting Report, 7-10 November1994, Constantza, Romania, 1995a.

________. GEF-BSEP Donor Coordination Meeting Report, 14-15 November 1995,Istanbul, 1995b.

________. GEF Environmental Management and Protection of the Black Sea ProjectEvaluation Report, November 20, 1995, 1995c.

________. Operational Strategy, Washington, DC, 1996a.________. International Black Sea Environmental NGO Forum Meeting Draft Report,

Gurzuf, Crimea, Ukraine, 15-18 October 1995, 1996b.Gençkaya, Ömer Faruk.“The Black Sea Economic Cooperation Project: A Regional

Challenge to European Integration,” International Social Science Journal 45(1993): 549-57.

_________. “States, IGOs and NGOs in Environmental Policy-Making: the Case ofBlack Sea.” Paper submitted at the 37th Annual Convention of the InternationalStudies Association, San Diego, CA, 17 April, 1996.

Gerlak, Andrea K. and Luara L. Parisi. “Managing International Waters: A Look at theGlobal Environmental Facility.” Paper presented at the 37th Annual Conventionof the International Studies Association, San Diego, CA, 17 April, 1996.

Goktepe, Gul. “Views and Comments on the Status of the Black Sea NGOs,” 4th SteeringCommittee Meeting of the BSEP, Kiev, Ukraine, 12-14 February 1997.

Gordenker, Leon and Thomas G. Weiss, eds. “Nongovernmental Organization, theUnited Nations and Global Governance,” Third World Quarterly, 16:3 (1995):543-55.

_________.“Pluralizing Global Governance: Analytical Approaches and Dimensions,” inNGOs, the UN, and Global Governance: Emerging Global Issues, Thomas G.Weiss and Leon Gordonker, Jr., eds., Boulder, CO: Lynne Reinner, 1996, pp.17-50..

Goyet, Slyvie (1997) “Strengthening NGO’s participation into the environmental process:the case study of the Black Sea,” (unpublished paper)

Haas, Peter M. (1990) Saving the Mediterranean, the Politics of InternationalEnvironmental Cooperation, New York: Columbia University Press.

_________. (1996) “The Future of International Environmental Governance,” pa-per presented at the 37th Annual Convention of the International Studies Associa-tion, San Diego (USA), 17 April.

Haque, M. Shamsal, (1999) The Fate of Sustainable Development Under Neo-liberalRegimes in Developing Countries, International Political Science Review, 20(2):197-218.

Hardi, Peter (1994) “East Central European Policy Making: The Case of Environment,”in Höll ed., pp. 177-201.

97

Hjorth, Ronnie (1994) “Baltic Sea Environmental Cooperation, The Role of EpistemicCommunities and the Politics of Regime Change,” Cooperation and Conflict,29: 11-31.

Höll, Otmar ed., (1994). Environmental Cooperation in Europe The Political Dimension,Boulder, San Francisco, Oxford: Westview Press.

Humphreys, David (1996) "Regime Theory and Non-Governmental Organisations: theCase of Forest Conservation," ?" The Journal of Commonwealth andComparative Politics, 34(1): 90-115.

IBSP (International Black Sea Partners), (1998), Draft Declaration of Meeting, Istanbul,23-24 June,

Inglehart, Ronald (1995) “Public Support for Environmental Protection: ObjectiveProblems and Subjective Values in 43 Societies,” PS: Political Science andPolitics, March 57-71.

Jain, R. B. (1992) “Regional Cooperation in Environmental Policies: A Study ofProspects in South Asian Countries,” a paper presented at the 33rd AnnualConvention of the ISA, Atlanta, 31 March-4 April.

Jancar-Webster, Barbara (1995) “The Environmental Legacies of Communism” ZoltanBerany and Ivan Volgyes, ed., The Legacies of Communism in Eastern Europe,Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.

_________. (1997) "Ecoimperialism in East Central Europe and the FSU: Fact orFiction?" paper presented at the 38th Annual Convention of the ISA, Toronto(Canada), 19-22 March.

Keohane, Robert O., and More A. Levy eds., (1996) Institutious for Environmental Aid:Pitfalls and Promise, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Kirvalidze, Nato (1998) “The Role of NGOs : an overview,” Saving the Black Sea, Issue:5.

_________. (1999) Interview notes.Knudsen,Stale (1998) “How do Coastal Populations of Turkey and Ukraine Respond to

the Marine Ecological Crisis?” Saving the Black Sea, Issue:6.Korten, D (1995) When corporations rule the world West Hartford: Kumarian Press.Lauber, Volkmar (1994) “The Political Infrastructure of Environmental Politics in

Western and Eastern Europe,” in Höll, ed., pp. 247-70.Lempert, Robert J. and Gwen Farnsworth (1994) “The Mediterranean Environment:

Prospects for Cooperation to Solve the Problems of the 1990s,” MediterraneanQuarterly, 5: 110-24.

Lipschutz, Ronnie with Judith Mayer (1996), Global Civil Society and GlobalEnvironmental Governance: The Politics of Nature from Place to Planet,Albany: SUNNY Press.

Litfin, Karen T. (1997) “Sovereignty in World Ecopolitics” Mershon InternationalStudies Review, 41(2): 167-204.

March A. Levy, Robert O. Keohane and Peter M. Haas, (1994) “Improving theEffectiveness of International Environmental Institutions in Haas, Peter M.,Robert O. Keohane and March A. Levy (eds) Institutions for the Earth, Sourcesof Effective International Environmental Protection, Cambridge, Mass., : TheMIT Press. Pp. 397-426.

98

Mater, Nadire (1997)"TURKEY: Villagers Fighting Foreign Gold Diggers Get BriefRespite," 9 June, Inter Press Service, http:/www.oneworl.org /ips2 /jun /turkey.html

McCormick, John. (1993) “International Nongovernmental Organizations: Prospects fora Global Environmental Movement,” in Sheldon Kamieniecki, ed.,Environmental Politics in the International Arena, New York: State Universityof New York Press, pp. 131-45.

McDowell, Mark A. (1989) “Development and the Environment in ASEAN,” PacificAffairs, 62: 307-329.

Meadowcroft, James (1999) The Politics of Sustainable Development: Emergent Arenasand Challenges for Political Science, International Political Science Review,20(2): 219-37.

Neciu, Cristina (1998), “International Black Sea NGO Meeting Attract New Partners,”Saving the Black Sea, Issue 6, September.

Oman, Charles (1993) Globalization and Regionalization: The Challenge for DevelopingCountries, Paris: OECD.

Pahlberg, Kanneth and Marvin Soroos, Environment and the Global Arena, Durham,Duke University Press, 1985.

Petroune, Inna (1999) “Problems of BS NGOs” E-mail Correspondence. Black SeaTourism Education network, http://www.bsten.freeservers.com.

Porter, Gareth and Janet Brown (1991) Global Environmental Politics, Boulder, CO,Oxford: Westview.

Porter, Michael and Claas van der Linde (1995) Green and Competitive: Ending theStalemate” Harvard Business Review, 73 (September-October) 120-34.

Potter, David and Annie Taylor, (1996) “Introduction” in Special Issue on NGO’s andEnvironmental Policies: Asia and Africa, The Journal of Commenwealth andComparative Politics, 34(1): 1-8.

Princen Thomas and Matthias Finger (eds) (1994) Environmental NGOs in WorldPolitics: Linking the Local and the Global, London and New York: Routledge.

Princen, Thomas et al., (1994) “Transnational Linkages” in Princen and Finger eds.,Raustiala, Kal, (1997) States, NGOs, and International Environmental Institutions,

International Studies Quarterly, 41(4): 719-40.Ringus, Lasse, (1997) “Environmental NGOs and Regime Change: The Case of Ocean

Dumping of Radioactive Waste, European Journal of International Relations,3(1): 61-104.

Saetevik, Sunneva (1998) Environmental Cooperation between the North Sea States,New York: Columbia University Press.

Sampson, Martin W. III (1995a) “The Sea Itself and Environmental Cooperation,” papersubmitted at International Conference on Black Sea Security, May 1995, Varna(Bulgaria).

_________. (1995b) “Black Sea Environmental Cooperation: States and ‘the MostSeriosly Degraded Regional Sea,” Bogazici Journal, Review of Social, Economicand Administrative Studies, 9(1): 51-76.

Savulescu, Alendru R. (1997). “Greening the Black Sea,” The Bulletin, A Quarterly of theREC, 7(1), Spring. http:// www.rec.org/REC/Bulletin/Bull71/BlackSea.html

99

Schreurs, Miranda A. (1997). “Environmental Cooperation in the Northeast AsianRegion,” paper presented at the 37th World Congress of the IPSA, Seoul (S.Korea), 17-21 August.

Smith Brian D. (1988) State Responsibility and the Marine Environment: The Rules ofDecision, Oxford: Clarendon.

Spiro, Peter J., (1994) “New Global Communities: Nongovernmental Organizations inInternational Decision-Making Institutions, The Washington Quarterly, 18 (1):45-56.

Stewart, John Massey ed., (1992) The Soviet environment: problems, policies andpolitics, Cambridge: CUP.

Strategic Action Plan for the Rehabilitation and Protection of the Black Sea, Istanbul, 31October 1996.

Summit Declaration on Black Sea Economic Cooperation, Istanbul, June 25, 1992.Handbook of Documents, Istanbul: Permanent Secratariat of the Black SeaEconomic Cooperation.

Thomas, Christopher and Gregory A. Tereposky (1993) “The NAFTA and the SideAgreement on Environmental Co-operation,” Journal of World Trade, 27: 5-36.

TIME-Ecoprojects Foundation (1999) Project Progress Report: Strengthening NGONetworking in the Black Sea region,

Topping, Graham (1998) “Black Sea in Crisis Symposium,” Saving the Black Sea, Issue:5, February.

UNDP et al. (1995) Black Sea Environmental Programme, 1994 Annual Report._________. (1996) Black Sea Environmental Programme, 1995 Annual Report._________. (1997) Black Sea Environmental Programme, 1996 Annual Report._________. (1998) Black Sea Environmental Programme, 1997 Annual Report.UNDP, UNEP and World Bank (1993) Saving The Black Sea, New York: World Bank.Ural, Engin (1995) “An Overview of the Concept of the Volunteer Organization,”

Conference on Volunteer Organizations, 28-29 March, Ankara: EnvironmentFoundation of Turkey.

VanBuren, Lisa (1995) “Citizen Participation and the Environment in Russia, and DeBardeleben and Hannigan eds., pp. 128-37.

VanDeveer, Stacy D. and Geoffrey D. Dabelko (1999) “Redefining Security Around theBaltic: Environmental Issues in Regional Context,” Global Governance, 5: 221-49.

Vari, Anna and Pal Tamas eds., (1993), Environment and Democratic Transition, Policyand Politics in Central and Eastern Europe, Dordrecht, Boston, London:Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Wapner, Paul (1995) “Politics Beyond the State, Environmental Activism and WorldCivic Politics,” World Politics, 47(3): 311-40.

_________. (1996) Environmental Activism and World Civic Politics, Albany: SUNYPress.

Zhilikov, Vyacheslav (1995), “NGOs and NGO Law in Ukaine,” NGO Law in Brief inthe New Independent States, n.p.

Ziegler, Charles E. (1987) Environmental Policy in the USSR, London: Frances Pinter.

100

Endnotes:

1 Haas, 1996: 44.2 Conca, 1996.3 McCormick, 1993; Haas, 1996: 22-25; Brooks and VanDeveer, 1997; and Auer, 1999.4 Raustiala, 1997: 719-24.5 Princen and Finger, 1994; Lipschutz and Conca, 1994; Humphreys, 1996; and Raustiala, 1997.6 Auer, 1999: 8.7 Auer, 1999: 2.8 Levy, Keohane and Haas, 1994: 420; Princen et al. 1994: 223.9 op. cit., Eccleston, 1996 and Ringus, 1997: 63-5.10 Lipschutz and Mayer, 1996 and Wapner, 1995.11 Auer, 1999: 7-9.12 Potter and Taylor, 1996: 4-6.13 Ibid.14 Korten, 1995.15 Chatterjee and Finger, 1994.16 Korten, 1995.17 Porter and van der Linde, 1995.18 Fuchs and Mazmanian, 1998.19 Finger and Kilcoyne, 1996.20 Haas, 1996: 37.21 Spiro, 1994: 46 and Porter and Brown, 1991.22 Gordenker and Weiss, 1996.23 Raustiala, 1997: 724-5.24 Auer, 1999: 5.25 Dahlberg and Soroos, 1985: 48.26 Sampson, 1995a: 25.27 Meadowcroft, 1999: 227-8.28 Haque, 1999.29 Jancar-Webster, 1997: 32.30 Raustiala, 1997: 733.31 Gerlak and Parisi, 1996: 9-13 and Raustiala, 1997: 734.32 GEF, 1996a.33 Raustiala, 1997: 734-6.34 El-Ashry, 1997.35 Gerlak and Parisi, 1996: 11-3.36 Ibid.37 Jain, 1992: 7 and Litfin, 1997.38 Oman, 1993: 6.39 McDowell, 1989; Sunneva, 1988; Haas, 1990; Jain, 1992; Thomas and Tereposky, 1993; Lempert andFarnsworth, 1994; Hjorth, 1994; Höll, 1994; Brooks and VanDeveer, 1997; Schreurs, 1999; and VanDe-veer and Dabelko, 1999.40 UNDP et al., 1993: 2.41 Ibid.: 3.42 Ibid.43 UNDP et al., 1993: 11 and Feschback and Friendly, 1992.44 Ibid.45 Ibid.: 1846 De Bardeleben and John Hannigan, 1995; Jancar-Webster, 1995.47 Gençkaya, 1993; 55.48 The six countries that surround the Black Sea are Bulgaria, Georgia, Romania, Russian Federation,Turkey and Ukraine.49 The three protocols are Against Pollution by Land Based Sources, Against Pollution by Oil and otherHarmful Substances, Against Pollution by Dumping.

101

50 GEF, 1995c.51 Goyet, 1997: 5.52 Ibid: 22-3 and UNDP et al, 1998: i.53 op.cit., and Goyet, 1997: 1.54 Stewart, 1992: 191-5; Lauber, 1994: 259-63; and VanBuren, 1995.55 Ural, 1995.56 Stewart, 1992; UNDP et al, 1998: 25; and Vari and Tamas, 1993.57 Jancar-Webster, 1997: 31 and Goyet, 1997: 2.58 UNDP et al., 1998: 25.59 Goyet, 1997: 4.60 Ibid.61 EU, 1999.62 UNDP et al., 1995: 3; UNDP et al., 1996: 26; UNDP et al., 1997:29 and UNDP et al, 1998: 25-33.63 UNDP et al., 1995: 31 and GEF, 1995a.64 Ibid.: 32 and GEF, 1995c.65 Ibid.66 GEF, 1995b: 37-40.67 GEF, 1995c: 37-38.68 UNDP et al., 1996: iii.69 Ibid.: 26.70 Ibid.: 25.71 GEF, 1996b.72 GEF, 1995b: 70-81.73 UNDP et al., 1997: 31.74 Ibid.: 29.75 Ibid.: 28.76 Ibid.: 28-29.77 UNDP et al., 1998: 26-36.78 Ibid: 27.79 Ibid: 28.80 Ibid: 29.81 Black Sea NGO Forum, 1997.82 Black Sea NGO Forum, 1998: 5.83 Ibid: 4.84 Nenciu, 1998: 7.85 Çilingirolu and Özarslan, 1998: 9.86 IBSP, 1998.87 Nenciu, 1998:7.88 Black Sea NGO Forum, 1998: 7.89 Black Sea NGO Forum, 1998: 9-11.90 Black Sea NGO Forum, 1998.91 TIME, 1999.92 Çilingirolu, 1999.93 Çilingirolu and Dartsimelia, 1998 a and b.94 TIME, 1999.95 BSEP, 1998:12.96 Kirvalidze, 1999.97 Goyet, 1997: 8.98 Goyet, 1997: 11 and UNDP et al, 1997: i.99 Gençkaya, 1996.100 Göktepe, 1997 and Petroune, 1999.101 Kirvalidze, 1998: 10.102 UNDP et al., 1997: i.103 BSEP, 1996c.104 Goyet, 1997: 10 and Kirvalidze, 1998: 10.

102

105 Zhilikov, 1995 and Petroune, 1999.106 Kirvalidze, 1998: 10.107 Inglehart, 1995.108 Topping, 1998: 5-6.109 Sampson, 1995b: 73-4.110 Mater: 1997.111 Çilingirolu and Dartsimelia, 1998.112 Jancar-Webster, 1997: 5-10.113 Savulescu, 1997.114 Jancar-Webster, 1997: 32.115 Keohane et al., 1996.