The Final Result is Important for Every Cause

The stimulation of investment should be a government responsibility.
So it is logical that there is greater transparency of the supported investment
projects, according to Lyuba Batembergska from the Civil Initiative “Let’s Save Karadere”

How many people are there in the initiative? What was your first joint action?

“Let’s Save Karadere” is a Facebook group that was initiated several years ago when the company Darmateks Bulgaria was attempting to urbanize the region of Byala.  Our first action was triggered by the approval given by the government of Plamen Oresharski to grant a priority status to the investment project of the offshore company “Madara Europe” to construct a luxurious hotel complex at the Karadere beach. Currently, the group has 5,000 members. The operational team comprises 15 people, among which environmental experts and green NGOs. Our goal is to popularize the cause.

What are your tactics in searching information related to the campaign?

When we started to campaign against the urbanization of the Karadere region, it turned out that most of the documents for the construction we needed were pubic. When we looked closer to the content and the respective laws, it became clear that the documents did not comply with the legal requirements. And if in the case with the illegal housing of the Roma population in the village of Garmen the institutions realized there was a problem at once, in our case, it was not so obvious. We had to collect evidence to prove that there are unlawful practice. The Access to Public Information Act (APIA) was extremely useful because under the law we can obtain official documents held  by the institutions.

How many requests under the APIA have you filed and which institutions have you addressed?

Most frequently, we have requested information from the Regional Inspection on Environment and Waters – Bourgas (RIEW). They have always provided it.
The Karadere area falls under the protection of seven laws. So, we had to file requests to all responsible institutions. We used the information to compare and see if documents and decisions taken in the past were complying with the legal requirements.

We filed a request to the Ministry of Environment and Waters for a research performed by experts from the Bulgarian Academy of Science regarding the protected species that existed in the area of Karadere.
We requested information from the Ministry of Agriculture and Food because the land in the area is classified as agricultural and forest lands. The ministry refused to provide access. We also requested documents from the National Construction Control Directorate. The information they have provided is very important, considering that the RIEW – Bourgas did not have it.

You mentioned that there were instance when you presented information to the institutions.

There is a communication gap between the institutions which is a problem for the officials working there. For instance, there is no updated information about the status of the land in the Cadastre Agency. We have presented information to the Prosecutor’s Office and the RIEW – Bourgas.

What good practices and what problems have you faced in your search for information from public bodies?

The best part was that we had a lot of meetings with experts. As a whole, they were all well-intentioned. In the beginning we were often told: “We would very much like you to succeed, because we are fed up of al this. But there is no chance.”

Here is a recent example. A year ago, the investor “Maksi 1” JSC was granted green light for the construction of the so called camp site, which included SPA center and luxurious bungalows. The initial decision of the RIEW – Bourgas was that there was no need for an Environmental Impact Assessment on the project. We made a lot of fuss and the Ministry of Environment and Waters distanced itself from the decision. The latter was repealed. Then the ministry performed and internal inspection in the RIEW – Bourgas and found violations in the process of decision-making. It turned out that the managers had concealed information from their employees. The project was referred back for consultation to the Basin Directorate – Varna and the Regional Health Inspection three times. We logically come to the question – is this an incident. What is the administration doing to protect its employees from external pressure? Public officials should feel safe performing their duties. The ministry of environment did not send the case to the Prosecutor’s Office.

Which is the most significant case in your advocacy case?

The final result is important for every cause. I hope that Karadere will be saved soon. I hope that it will not follow the case with Irakli where 10 years later we still do not have a solution.  Most of the time when we requested information, we were granted access. The exceptions are the Ministry of Agriculture and Food and the Ministry of Economy. The latter did not provide the investment project of “Madara Europe” JSC. The project was very important because there was an attempt by the investor to acquire the status of a priority investor. The Ministry had refused the initial project on the ground that it was not in compliance with the requirements of the Law on Stimulating the Investments. We requested the new investment project in order to see if the deficiencies had been corrected. We received a refusal. The stimulation of investments is a public government policy and there should be greater transparency of the investment projects supported by the state.

How do you popularize the information that you receive?

We have a web site karadere.info and a Facebook page where we publish all the information we have obtained. The information we received under the APIA we provide to environmental organizations, to public bodies, we use it as evidence in court cases.

Are you cooperating with other nongovernmental organizations campaigning for the protection of the Bulgarian Sea Side?

We work with “Let’s Save Koral,” “Let’s Save Irakli,” and the Coalition “For the Nature in Bulgaria.” We co-authored statements for amendments to the laws related to the Bulgarian Black Sea Coast and introduced them in the National Assembly.

What is your advice to the citizens who are seeking information?

It is extremely easy to use the Access to Public Information Act. There is a form of a request published on AIP web site. It is important to personalize the request. The texts in the end of the law are very useful. They explain what public information is and what an overriding public interest is. If you point out in the request that there is overriding public interest in the disclosure, it becomes more convincing and a refusal can be avoided.

Do you think that APIA should be amended in some way?

The most serious obstacles we face are in the cases when the information relates to the interests of a third party or is official secret. The information that is classified as official secret contains the positions of a lot of institutions. For instance, when an Environmental Assessment is made, the agreed position of several institutions is sought. This information is sometimes refused.

September 2015

This case is part of the book "Civil Participation and Access to Information (15 Years of the APIA, 37 stories of NGOs)" published by AIP within the implementation of the project “Enhancing the Capacity of Nongovernmental Organizations to Seek Public Information” supported with a grant under the NGO Programme in Bulgaria under the Financial Mechanism of the European Economic Area 2009 – 2014 (www.ngogrants.bg).

The whole responsibility for the content shall be taken by the Access to Information Programme Foundaiton and it cannot be assumed under any circumstances that the document reflects the official stance of the  Financial Mechanism of the European Economic Area and the Operator of the Programme for NGO support in Bulgaria.