Documentation on good practice in the handling of ... file · Web viewEcologic Word Vorlage Martin Strecker, C.O.S. Berlin Stand: Juni 2015

Renner Architekten GmbH

Bürgerheimstraße 5

D-10365 Berlin

T +49 30 749 213 45

F +49 30 749 217 60

[email protected]

www.r2-a.de

Geschäftsführer

Dipl.-Ing. Detert Renner

Registergericht

Amtsgericht Charlottenburg

Register-Nr HRB 156 133 B

Ust-IdNr. DE 293 459 410

Documentation on good practice in the handling of environmental complaints and engagement of citizens at Member State levelDraft outline for discussion and comments

Version: 25 May 2018

Authors:

Christine Lucha

Dr. Heidi Stockhaus

Stephen Stec

2018-A7-W1-DOC4-Draft-Complaints-Documentation

Note that this document does not necessarily reflect the views of the European Commission. It is a working draft outline for comments and in particular for discussion at a workshop to be held on 8 June 2018 in DG Environment, Brussels.

1

1

Renner Architekten GmbH

Bürgerheimstraße 5

D-10365 Berlin

T +49 30 749 213 45

F +49 30 749 217 60

[email protected]

www.r2-a.de

Geschäftsführer

Dipl.-Ing. Detert Renner

Registergericht

Amtsgericht Charlottenburg

Register-Nr HRB 156 133 B

Ust-IdNr. DE 293 459 410

Note:

This outline is the result of initial discussion with DG ENV on the scope and structure of a documentation including meeting the objectives set out in the SWD on compliance assurance. The document largely consists of an annotated structure, with some examples of the types of content that might be included in some areas.

The detail is yet to be worked out and will be discussed further within the Commission Services, networks, Member States, etc. Some initial questions mainly to EU MS authorities/workshop participants are already included for illustrative purposes. At this stage, it is not determined what the final level of detail should be. It is important to note that some information will be placed into annexes and there is a background document that contains additional information on good practices, for example. What information will be placed where may be determined as work progresses and stakeholders provide feedback.

At this stage there is the suggestion that the documentation may be produced in a way that MS can add their own text to it, such as their own legal obligations, institutional arrangements, etc. The outline highlights this in some places, but this would be explored further during writing and together with workshop participants.

The aim would be to produce guidance that is user friendly and easy to understand and with a good appearance.

Finally, it is also important to stress that this documentation is one of three documents being produced. The other two are guidance documents on combatting environmental crime and on environmental compliance in rural areas. The interlinkages between these documents will be worked out in the course of the workshops and further exchanges between the drafting groups and COM services. Besides, intersections with the guidance on access to justice in environmental matters and a planned guidance on citizen science will be pointed out.

21

2

Outline

Executive summary.............................................................................................................................

1 Introduction...................................................................................................................................1.1 Compliance and compliance assurance: why it matters......................................................1.1.1 What is compliance?....................................................................................................................................

1.1.2 What is compliance assurance?..................................................................................................................

1.1.3 The EU`s commitment to better compliance assurance..............................................................................

1.2 Complaints from the public and citizen engagement............................................................1.2.1 Role of complaints and why they are important...........................................................................................

1.2.2 Role of citizen engagement.........................................................................................................................

1.2.3 How citizen science can help.......................................................................................................................

1.2.4 Why do complaint mechanisms need to be effective?.................................................................................

1.3 Scope of this documentation: Good practices concerning handling of environmental complaints and engagement of citizens at Member State level...........................................

1.4 Addressees of this documentation.......................................................................................

1.5 How this documentation was developed............................................................................

2 Complaint-making......................................................................................................................2.1 Introduction.........................................................................................................................

2.2 Who complains?.................................................................................................................2.2.1 Individual members of the public...............................................................................................................

2.2.2 Environmental NGOs.................................................................................................................................

2.2.3 Legal professionals....................................................................................................................................

2.2.4 Mass complaints........................................................................................................................................

2.2.5 Anonymous complaints..............................................................................................................................

2.2.6 Whistleblowers...........................................................................................................................................

2.3 To whom are complaints directed?.....................................................................................

2.4 What are complaints about?...............................................................................................2.4.1 Complaints about activities........................................................................................................................

2.4.2 Complaints about alleged maladministration and appeals.........................................................................

2.5 How are complaints made?................................................................................................2.5.1 Correspondence-based complaints...........................................................................................................

2.5.2 Complaints based on other means............................................................................................................

2.5.3 The role of citizen science in complaint-making........................................................................................

3 Relevant EU provisions and frameworks................................................................................3.1 Introduction.........................................................................................................................

3.2 Environmental provisions and instruments.........................................................................3.2.1 Environmental law principles.....................................................................................................................

3.2.2 First-tier complaints and dialogue..............................................................................................................

31

2

3.2.3 Second-tier complaints..............................................................................................................................

3.2.4 Relationship with access to justice in environmental matters....................................................................

3.2.5 Importance of public participation..............................................................................................................

3.3 More general provisions and frameworks..........................................................................3.3.1 Fundamental Rights...................................................................................................................................

3.3.2 The Victims Directive 2012/29/EU (Article 5).............................................................................................

3.3.3 Mediation...................................................................................................................................................

3.3.4 Commission complaint mechanism...........................................................................................................

3.3.5 Role of European Ombudsman and Ombudsman Network.......................................................................

3.3.6 Right to petition the European Parliament.................................................................................................

4 Handling of complaints about activities..................................................................................4.1 Introduction.........................................................................................................................

4.2 Purposes of complaint-handling.........................................................................................4.2.1 Fulfilment of general compliance assurance objectives.............................................................................

4.2.2 Ensuring public confidence and trust.........................................................................................................

4.3 Who is responsible for complaint-handling?.......................................................................

4.4 Achieving good governance...............................................................................................

4.5 How are complaints handled by compliance assurance authorities?.................................4.5.1 Description of a typical complaint-handling procedure and the challenges...............................................

4.5.2 Registering the complaint..........................................................................................................................

4.5.3 Analysing the complaint.............................................................................................................................

4.5.4 Acting on the complaint..............................................................................................................................

4.5.5 Engaging with the complainant..................................................................................................................

4.5.6 The role of citizen science in complaint-handling......................................................................................

4.6 Capacities and tools to ensure good complaint-handling...................................................

5 Handling of complaints about alleged maladministration and appeals...............................5.1 Introduction.........................................................................................................................

5.2 Purposes of complaint-handling.........................................................................................

5.3 Who is responsible for complaint-handling?.......................................................................

5.4 How are complaints handled?............................................................................................5.4.1 Recording the complaint............................................................................................................................

5.4.2 Analysing the complaint.............................................................................................................................

5.4.3 Acting on the complaint..............................................................................................................................

5.4.4 Engaging with the complainant..................................................................................................................

5.5 Capacities and tools to ensure good complaint-handling...................................................

6 Wider citizen engagement.........................................................................................................6.1 Introduction.........................................................................................................................

6.2 Purpose of citizen engagement..........................................................................................

6.3 Encouraging economic operators and others to engage proactively with citizens.............

41

2

6.4 Neighbourhood dialogue....................................................................................................

6.5 Role of citizen science........................................................................................................

7 Conclusions................................................................................................................................

8 Glossary......................................................................................................................................

9 Citizen science appendix...........................................................................................................9.1 Definitions...........................................................................................................................

9.2 Four levels of citizen science..............................................................................................

9.3 Ten Principles of citizen science:.......................................................................................

9.4 Guidance documents..........................................................................................................

10 References..................................................................................................................................

51

2

Executive summary

61

2

1 Introduction

1.1 Compliance and compliance assurance: why it mattersShort introduction to the process and the three classes of interventions:

compliance promotion;

compliance monitoring;

follow-up and enforcement.

1.1.1 What is compliance?The EU environmental acquis introduces legal obligations on public authorities, businesses and individuals. Obligations are either set directly in EU regulations or require Member States to elaborate their own legal obligations to meet an environmental objective. Meeting these rules is compliance. It is important to note that compliance with rules not only includes what must (or must not) be done, but also when and possibly how and sometimes by whom.

1.1.2 What is compliance assurance?This section will include an explanation of what is meant by compliance assurance, i.e. the whole assessment chain from detection, evidence gathering, non-compliance responses, including enforcement, and also including proactive support through compliance promotion.

The definitions included will follow those used in the Commission SWD.

1.1.3 The EU`s commitment to better compliance assuranceSummary of the importance in the Compliance Assurance Communication, SWD, actions, etc. – links to EIR, so setting the high level political and policy context of compliance assurance – and therefore why readers should take this documentation seriously.

1.2 Complaints from the public and citizen engagement Complaints and citizen engagement represent a means of helping authorities to detect, investigate and respond to actual or suspected non-compliance and to support compliance. At the same time, they are a means of ensuring public confidence in environmental rules and the role of environmental authorities.

Citizen engagement in the form of submission of information can help all three types of interventions and additionally risk assessment (see also Annex 4 of SWD).

1.2.1 Role of complaints and why they are importantFor public authorities, complaints are:

A source of information about compliance problems and an aid to problem-solving;

A means of being alerted to concerns about citizen rights;

A spur to ensuring good public administration.

As a source of information, complaints can represent part of geo-intelligence1.

For the public, complaints are:

1 Link to Action 8 of the 9-point Action Plan: “Build up the capacity and use of geospatial intelligence for compliance assurance and promote good practice projects”.

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

89

101112

13

141516

17

18

192021

22

23242526

2728

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

123

4

A means of having their grievances, including about perceived infringement of rights, addressed;

A means of alerting authorities to problems that concern the public.

Good complaint-handling systems help compliance assurance and strengthen the bonds between the public and public administration.

1.2.2 Role of citizen engagementCitizens can be usefully engaged in compliance assurance outside of submission of specific complaints. Citizen engagement can have a potentially very wide scope, including specific formal public consultation procedures under the Aarhus Convention and related EU legislation. The present documentation does not cover such formal consultation processes but rather looks at proactive citizen engagement on matters that might otherwise come within the scope of complaint-making.

1.2.3 How citizen science can helpStart with a broad definition of citizen science as laid down for example in the "Green Paper on Citizen Science" referring to "the general public engagement in scientific research activities when citizens actively contribute to science either with their intellectual effort or surrounding knowledge or with their tools and resources. Participants provide experimental data and facilities for researchers, raise new questions and co-create a new scientific culture. While adding value, volunteers acquire new learning and skills, and deeper understanding of the scientific work in an appealing way. As a result of this open, networked and trans-disciplinary scenario, science-society-policy interactions are improved [,] leading to a more democratic research, based on evidence-informed decision making."2

Citizen science can serve policymakers by providing evidence to support regulatory compliance and inform policymaking. Through their sheer numbers and distribution, citizen science volunteers can produce big data beyond that which environmental authorities can produce on their own.

It can also serve citizens by providing opportunities to address environmental issues that directly affect citizens – at local, national and global scales – and influence decision-making about these issues.

Issues such as quality assurance of the information given and methods to achieve a well-balanced participation of various civic groups are to be addressed in this context.

See Citizen Science appendix. Please note that the Commission intends to produce a separate, more general guidance on Citizen Science.

1.2.4 Why do complaint mechanisms need to be effective?Especially in the area of EU environment law, a delay or an error in the application of the respective laws and provisions weakens the system itself, its acceptance and credibility. It also reduces the possibilities for its objectives to be achieved and may even undermine the rule of law. A different standard of protection of the environment in the EU Member States due to a diverging effectiveness of complaint-handling in relation to non-compliance of the respective rules could also lead to diverging conditions of competition and consequently to losses in public acceptance of law of the European Union.

2 Published by the European Commission's Digital Science Unit and Socientize.eu in 2013, see https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/green-paper-citizen-science-europe-towards-society-empowered-citizens-and-enhanced-research

8

1

2

34

5

6789

10

11

1213141516171819

202122

232425

2627

2829

30

31323334353637

12345

6

1.3 Scope of this documentation: Good practices concerning handling of environmental complaints and engagement of citizens at Member State level

This section will set the boundaries of the documentation and explain how the intervention logic works within the structure of the documentation.

The handling of complaints must cover both complaints from individuals affected by the infringements of environmental law as well as from (accredited) environmental organisations and others (first category, see Chapter 4). Furthermore, mechanisms of handling complaints from individuals and civic organisations about how national administrations have (not) fulfilled obligations related to the EU environmental acquis are to be covered (second category, see Chapter 5).

As regards citizen engagement and citizen science, in the context of this documentation the focus is on volunteer data/information gathering that is useful for compliance assurance.

The documentation can be adapted by Member States to their specific conditions and, therefore, it is foreseen that Member States can add their own specific issues to be included in the scope.

For information, the box below provides text from the SWD on the considerations that led the Commission to decide to produce this documentation.

Action 7, prepare documentation on good practices in the handling of environmental complaints and citizen engagement at Member State level

A number of specific considerations underlie Action 7:

the Commission’s communication EU law: better results through better application stresses the role national authorities play in securing the rights of individuals and the importance of supporting national redress mechanisms;

while complaint mechanisms form part of the concept of environmental compliance and while they figure in a number of environmental instruments, there is currently neither a general mechanism for, nor guidance on, handling environmental complaints at national level;

the high number of environmental complaints and petitions received by the European institutions show that there is scope for improving environmental complaint-handling within Member States;

citizen science offers a constructive model for how citizens can make environmental submissions to the competent authorities, something already acknowledged by the Commission in its report Actions to Streamline Environmental Reporting.

1.4 Addressees of this documentationThe documentation is mainly addressed to Member States compliance assurance authorities dealing with environmental complaints. It aims to help these authorities to apply good practices for environmental complaint-handling as well as organising citizen science submissions and citizen engagement. National ombuds-institutions or similar bodies are further addressees of the documentation with a focus on their role in handling complaints in respect to mal-administration.

Besides these authorities, national policy makers are addressed as they set the regulatory frameworks as well as guidance affecting the work of the authorities and the ombuds-institutions and the interactions between these bodies.

Individuals, environmental associations and other private parties are further addressees of the documentation with a focus on their role as potential providers of information with regard to compliance with the EU environmental acquis and/or complainants. Businesses too are addressed, in particular with a view to proactive citizen engagement.

9

123

45

6789

10

1112

1314

1516

17

1819202122

232425

26272829

1

2

1.5 How this documentation was developedShort text about how information was gathered, how the drafting/consultation/commenting was done and who was involved in the oversight teams and who participated in the workshops etc.

Questions for practitioners and others:

Do you have any comments or suggestions on the structure and content of this opening Chapter?

10

1

23

4

5

1

2

2 Complaint-making

2.1 Introduction

2.2 Who complains?Introduction of types of complainants also addressing their entitlement to lodge complaints and other challenges.

2.2.1 Individual members of the publicCharacterisation and challenges

2.2.2 Environmental NGOsCharacterisation and challenges

Address: Expert NGOs v. local associations

2.2.3 Legal professionalsE.g. law firms

Characterisation and challenges

2.2.4 Mass complaintsCharacterisation and challenges

2.2.5 Anonymous complaintsCharacterisation and challenges

2.2.6 WhistleblowersCharacterisation and challenges

Data protection issues

Are specific rules/safeguards needed?

Link to work of DG JUSTICE


Is the above list complete?

2.3 To whom are complaints directed?Complaints may go to a single authority or multiple authorities at the same time. Some complaints may go to authorities in more than one Member State and some may go to the European Commission and the European Parliament as well.

11

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

262728

1

2

2.4 What are complaints about?Two broad categories of complaints can be distinguished:

Complaints related to activities of public and private bodies that affect the environment (see Section 2.4.1 and Chapter 4) and

Complaints about alleged maladministration and appeals concerning the first category of complaints (see Section 2.4.2 and Chapter 5).

These two categories of complaints may be distinct, combined or successive. For example, a complaint about alleged maladministration or an appeal may follow a complaint about alleged infringements if the complainant is dissatisfied with the outcome. The complaint will then arise at two tiers.


Would it be useful to present this schematically?

2.4.1 Complaints about activitiesEU environmental rules govern how economic and other activities are carried out.

In terms of subject-matter, complaints may concern, amongst others:

environmental services (e.g. drinking water);

nuisances (e.g. noise, odours);

incidents and accidents;

prospective environmental damage;

environmental damage that has already occurred;

single locations or multiple locations;

transboundary problems, like movement of waste between different EU Member States;

a fixed point in time or a protracted period.

Possible challenges:

Subject-matter may be complex in terms of the legal, technical and scientific issues that arise.

Some subject-matter may call for more urgent intervention than others.

In terms of possible wrong-doing or liabilities, they may concern, amongst others:

serious crimes (see guidance on environmental crime - flag the importance of complaint-handling for crimes and offences being properly integrated into a wider system of crime-fighting);

offences;

evidence of past illegality (possible environmental damage, including damage covered by the Environmental Liability Directive);

specific activity/generalised non-compliance;

12

1

2

34

56

789

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

3132

33

3435

36

1

2

threat of imminent environmental damage that may give rise to environmental liability (link to Environmental Liability Directive).


Different authorities may be responsible for different categories of wrong-doing.

More than one authority may be responsible for different aspects of the complaint, raising co-ordination issues.

In terms of content, complaints may:

provide supporting evidence;

be unsubstantiated and limited to assertions and suspicions.


Distinguishing evidence and assertion. Question of how much verification is justified.

Table summarising these and indicating challenges as well as limits of coverage of the guidance


Is the above list complete or do other content come across in your daily work? Which ones?

How do you deal with those complaints that are not in your competence area?

2.4.2 Complaints about alleged maladministration and appealsRole of supervisory authorities, ombuds-institutions and similar bodies, also note possible importance of petitions committees in national parliaments. Note different competences.

Boundary with litigation (administrative courts); access to justice

Link to Notice on access to justice.

Link to Aarhus Convention.

In terms of subject-matter, complaints may concern:

How one or more public authorities handled a first-tier complaint;

How a public authority addressed an access-to-information request;

How a public authority handled other environmental responsibilities.


Some subject-matter may call for more urgent intervention than others.

13

12

3

4

5

67

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

1617

18

19

2021

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

1

2

In terms of alleged failures, they may concern:

Procedural aspects of good administration;

Substantive aspects of good administration;

Failure to allocate resources necessary for compliance;

Financial irregularities;

Corruption.


Maladministration may be alleged against more than one authority.

Limited resources of authorities to follow-up on complaints (some authorities have powers of discretion to prioritise cases).

In terms of content, they may:

Provide supporting evidence, such as correspondence;

Contain unsupported allegations.


Distinguishing evidence and assertion.


Do you have any comments or suggestions on this section?

2.5 How are complaints made?Methods that complainants use to submit complaints:

2.5.1 Correspondence-based complaintsCharacterisation and challenges

2.5.2 Complaints based on other meansTelephone hotline, Internet-based forms, etc.

Characterisation and challenges

2.5.3 The role of citizen science in complaint-makingRole/chances of citizen science in facilitating the transmission of useful information from citizens to public authorities and its limitations. This role centres on providing useful and reliable facts and evidence.


14

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1011

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

293031

32

1

2

Does this in your experience capture the methods complainants use to submit complaints?

151

2

3 Relevant EU provisions and frameworks

3.1 IntroductionThis section will guide the reader through relevant EU instruments. The focus will be on provisions and frameworks that are relevant for the handling of environmental complaints at national level.

3.2 Environmental provisions and instruments

3.2.1 Environmental law principlesEU law principles in Article 191(2) Treaty on Functioning of European (in particular preventive and precautionary principles and principle of rectification at source).

3.2.2 First-tier complaints and dialogue The Recommendation on Minimum Criteria for Environmental Inspections;

The Industrial Emissions Directive 2010/75/EU (Article 23);

The Seveso III Directive 2012/18/EU (Article 20);

The CCS Directive 2009/31/EC (Article 15);

The Environmental Liability Directive 2004/35/EC (Article 12);

The EMAS Regulation 1221/2009 as amended (see Annex II of Regulation).

3.2.3 Second-tier complaints The Access to Environmental Information Directive (Article 6).

3.2.4 Relationship with access to justice in environmental mattersBoundary between complaint-handling and access to justice.

Aarhus Convention (Article 9(1), 9(2) and 9(3) and Article 3(8)).

Notice on Access to Justice in Environmental Matters.

Access to Information Directive (provision for both administrative appeal and access to justice) and Environmental Liability Directive (provision for calling on authorities to act as well as provision for access to justice).

3.2.5 Importance of public participationBrief reference to the Aarhus Convention and related instruments on the importance of public participation (hook for citizen engagement).

3.3 More general provisions and frameworks

3.3.1 Fundamental RightsSuch as the Charter of Fundamental Rights

Effective complaint-handling mechanisms promote the public’s trust in institutions and the government. A treatment of complainants and complaints in line with the principles of the Charter of Fundamental Rights contributes to the effectiveness of complaint handling and to safeguarding

16

1

2

34

5

6

78

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

222324

25

2627

28

29

30

313233

1

2

fundamental rights, including freedom of speech and democratic accountability. There are various linkages between complaint-handling and fundamental rights protection:

Data protection (Article 8);

Freedom of expression (Article 11),

Freedom of assembly and association (Article 12);

Environmental protection (Article 37);

Right to good administration (Article 41),

Right of access to documents (Article 42),

Ombudsman (Article 43),

Right to petition (Article 44).

3.3.2 The Victims Directive 2012/29/EU (Article 5)

3.3.3 Mediation

3.3.4 Commission complaint mechanism

3.3.5 Role of European Ombudsman and Ombudsman Network

3.3.6 Right to petition the European Parliament

Schematic overview


Is there anything further at EU level that you would wish to mention?

17

12

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

1

2

4 Handling of complaints about activities

4.1 IntroductionDefinition of complaint-handling.

4.2 Purposes of complaint-handling

4.2.1 Fulfilment of general compliance assurance objectives End non-compliance as soon as possible;

Deter future non-compliance;

Prevent or remediate environmental damage.

Complaint-handling bodies need to act in a manner that is compliant with EU law (duty of loyal co-operation, see also point 155 of the Commission Notice on Access to Justice).

4.2.2 Ensuring public confidence and trust Not only fulfilling compliance assurance objectives but doing so in a way that satisfies good

governance principles.

4.3 Who is responsible for complaint-handling?Different responsible compliance assurance and other authorities at the national level, in particular:

Service-providers (e.g. municipal waste operators or drinking water providers);

Permit-supervising authorities (e.g. local authorities with inspection duties);

Criminal investigation authorities (police and prosecutors);

Authorities responsible for environmental liability;

First responders (e.g. emergency services if the complaint is about an environmental accident).

Importance of helping the public to know where to complain. Idea of a web-hub (e.g. Wales and Ireland).


Any comments? Anything to add?

4.4 Achieving good governanceDefinition of good governance.

Possible principles to be respected in procedures:

Accessibility and Simplicity: Accessibility involves public awareness of the possibility to alert authorities via the complaint and the functioning of the complaint mechanism. This requires a clear explanation that is easily accessible and drafted in a simple and clear language.

Transparency: A transparent complaint-handling system presupposes clear rules governing its functioning that are accessible by the public. Transparency implies that complainants have

18

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

910

11

1213

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

2122

23

24

25

26

27

282930

3132

1

2

access to information on the steps that are being taken and are informed about decisions taken. A system to record, analyse and report on complaints needs to be established.

Fairness: Fairness in the sense of equity can be ensured by overall transparency of the system and the possibility for complainants to keep track of their complaints throughout the proceeding. Fairness also needs to extend to alleged wrong-doers, since not all complaints are well-founded.

Confidentiality: The mechanisms should ensure that information about the identity of the complainant is protected. Confidentiality means accepting also anonymous complaints and giving more far reaching legal protection to whistle-blowers.

Independence and Accountability: Independence from political bias or private interests is a key to ensure public trust. Accountability may be achieved through the presence of independent supervisory bodies. Independence and accountability may be demonstrated via publication of periodic activity reporting containing measureable information.

Flexibility: The complaint mechanism should be able to respond to different types of complaints and open for constant review and improvement through the exchange of good practice.

Comprehensiveness: Complaint-handling bodies can only comprehensively deal with complaints in case they have the competence to take the necessary measures in all areas of environmental protection.

Effectiveness: Whether complaint-handling mechanisms are effective is determined by various factors, such as the financial capacities of a complaint-handling body, the expertise of the staff and the existence of a review mechanism.

Clarity of purpose: The competences of complaint-handling bodies need to be clear including their mandates to remedy breaches of environmental law or maladministration.

4.5 How are complaints handled by compliance assurance authorities?

This section describes complaint-handling by compliance assurance authorities in relation to activities.

4.5.1 Description of a typical complaint-handling procedure and the challenges

Figure on stages of a typical complaint-handling process

4.5.2 Registering the complaint Value of geo-recording complaints in data-bases (link to geo-intelligence).

Keeping complaints for some time for statistical, data-analytical and other purposes (e.g. patterns of repeat complaints about the same subject-matter).

4.5.3 Analysing the complaint Importance of impartiality and objectivity.

Characterise in terms of subject-matters, possible wrong-doing and content.

Location.

Searchable database.

Difference between grievance and evidence.

19

12

345

678

9101112

1314

151617

181920

2122

2324

2526

27

28

29

30

31

32

3334

35

36

37

38

39

40

1

2

Recognise who is responsible.

4.5.4 Acting on the complaint May need to be re-directed.

Feed into inspection and monitoring work.

May provide valuable evidence.

Raise with the alleged offending party.

Using the complaint in follow-up and enforcement, including court processes.

4.5.5 Engaging with the complainant Manage expectations.

Inform of outcomes.

Etc.

4.5.6 The role of citizen science in complaint-handlingDiscuss role of citizen science/citizen engagement (questions such as what would be acceptable as evidence in a complaint procedure, etc.).



4.6 Capacities and tools to ensure good complaint-handlingExamples could include:

Availability of scientific, legal and other technical expertise (wider role of specialisation).

Training programmes.

Electronic record-keeping mechanisms.

Mechanisms to address multiple/campaigning complaints.

Mechanisms/Benchmarks for ensuring timely response to complaints.

Mechanisms to review the general performance and effectiveness of complaint-handling systems (e.g. reporting, independent evaluation).

Mechanisms to encourage economic operators and others to engage proactively with citizens, so reducing likelihood of complaints (see Chapter on Citizen Engagement).

Value of internal practitioner networks and European-level networks like IMPEL for sharing and developing successful practices.

Focus on practical tools/approaches that can help authorities.



20

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

1314

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

2425

2627

2829

30

31

1

2

5 Handling of complaints about alleged maladministration and appeals

5.1 IntroductionComplaints about national administrations with obligations related to EU environmental acquis.

Distinction between litigation and these procedures.

A particular focus is given to complaints handled by Ombuds-institutions, since these are pre-eminent in ensuring high standards of governance.

Mention Ombuds-institutions for environmental protection (for example in Austria)

5.2 Purposes of complaint-handlingDo these/should these differ from the purposes of complaint-handling with respect to activities? It may be, for instance, that the focus of the complaint-handling is on how the original authority conducted itself and is not intended to replace that authority's function.


Any comments? Anything to add on purposes and objectives?

5.3 Who is responsible for complaint-handling? Authority responsible for administrative review (access to information);

Higher-level compliance assurance authority;

Ombudspersons,

Parliamentary committees;

Supreme Audit Bodies;

Police and prosecution authorities (for most serious allegations of maladministration).

Powers can vary considerably, even within a specific category like ombuds-institutions. Important to note that some ombuds-institutions can look at ethical issues and professional conduct and some can go to court.



21

1

2

3

4

5

67

8

9

101112

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

222324

25

26

1

2

5.4 How are complaints handled?

5.4.1 Recording the complaint

5.4.2 Analysing the complaint Value of using standardized complaint forms;

Challenge of understanding relevant EU environmental law. EU Ombudsman Network can ask the Commission for an interpretation, e.g. Maltese Ombudsman question on the Wild Birds Directive.

5.4.3 Acting on the complaint Value of Ombudsman reports and recommendations.

5.4.4 Engaging with the complainant Manage expectations;

Inform of outcomes;

etc.



5.5 Capacities and tools to ensure good complaint-handlingHow might this vary compared to complaints on activities?

Benefits of active involvement in the Network of European Ombudsmen, in case of Ombuds-institutions.



22

1

2

3

4

567

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

1819

20

21

1

2

6 Wider citizen engagement

6.1 IntroductionMake distinction between citizen engagement by authorities and citizen engagement between private actors (e.g. economic operators) and the public.

6.2 Purpose of citizen engagementThere is value in mechanisms that engage citizens proactively. Such mechanisms can help to avoid or anticipate the perceived need to make complaints. They can also help public authorities to better fulfil their tasks and strengthen bonds between the public and their administrations. Consistent with the principles of prevention and rectification at source.

This fits within a wider policy context of an envisaged active role of the public in environmental protection (Aarhus Convention).

It also needs to be recognised that citizen engagement may occur spontaneously, without authorities necessarily being involved (at least initially). Citizen science methods may be used by citizens and their associations to record and draw public attention to a problem and the need to respond to it.

6.3 Encouraging economic operators and others to engage proactively with citizens

Mention EMAS Regulation, Annex II under communication:

"Organisations shall be able to demonstrate that they conduct an open dialogue with the public, the authorities and other interested parties, including local communities and customers in relation to the environmental impact of their activities, products and services."

Mention other relevant (national) Environmental Management Systems that promote engagement with citizens.

Consider proactive engagement of citizens under the Seveso III Directive 2012/18/EU: Continual information to the public (Article 14) and public consultation and participation in decision-making with regard to specific individual projects permits before the decision is taken and with regard to the establishment of general plans and programmes (Article 15).

Mention proactive engagement under Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC: MS shall encourage the active involvement of all interested parties in the implementation of the Directive, in particular in the production, review and updating of the river management plans (Article 14).

6.4 Neighbourhood dialogueMention IMPEL project on the resolution of environmental conflicts by neighbourhood dialogue: This project involved participants from 17 European countries. It achieved an exchange of dialogue experiences between Member States.

The participants in the project recommend support for the further application of dialogue processes as voluntary instruments in the implementation and enforcement of environmental law. In particular, they recommend: using dialogue as an option within complaint procedures; using dialogue before or parallel to permit procedures (e. g. in accordance with the IPPC directive); encouraging companies to use the dialogue process as part of operating their site.

6.5 Role of citizen science

23

1

2

34

5

6789

1011

121314

1516

17

181920

2122

23242526

272829

30

313233

3435363738

39

40

1

2



241

2

7 Conclusions

25

1

1

2

8 Glossary

261

2

9 Citizen science appendix

9.1 Definitions"The general public engagement in scientific research activities when citizens actively contribute to science either with their intellectual effort or surrounding knowledge or with their tools and resources. Participants provide experimental data and facilities for researchers, raise new questions and co-create a new scientific culture. While adding value, volunteers acquire new learning and skills, and deeper understanding of the scientific work in an appealing way. As a result of this open, networked and trans-disciplinary scenario, science-society-policy interactions are improved [,] leading to a more democratic research, based on evidence-informed decision making." (Green Paper on Citizen Science)3.

Citizen Science is a growing worldwide phenomenon which describes the contribution of citizens to generate scientific information and knowledge. Initially coined to generally describe local and traditional lay knowledge, Citizen Science refers today to a wide range of activities ranging from mobilising the public to gather data, to the involvement of trained volunteers in interpreting data and providing solutions, to the full participation of citizens in science and policy-making (based on Indepth Report: Environmental Citizen Science)4.

9.2 Four levels of citizen science

Source: Haklay, M. (2012). Crowdsourcing Geographic Knowledge: Volunteered Geographic Information (VGI) in Theory and Practice. Berlin: Springer.

9.3 Ten Principles of citizen science:The Ten Principles of Citizen Science5 have been developed by the "Sharing best practice and building capacity" working group of the European Citizen Science Association (ECSA);

1. Citizen science projects actively involve citizens in scientific endeavour that generates new knowledge or understanding.

3 Published by the European Commission's Digital Science Unit and Socientize.eu in 2013, see https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/green-paper-citizen-science-europe-towards-society-empowered-citizens-and-enhanced-research4 Science Communication Unit, University of the West of England, Bristol (2013). Science for Environment Policy Indepth Report: Environmental Citizen Science. Report produced for the European Commission DG Environment, December 2013. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/science-environment-policy)5 Published by the European Citizen Science Association (ECSA) in September 2015, see https://ecsa.citizen-science.net/sites/default/files/ecsa_ten_principles_of_citizen_science.pdf

27

1

2

3456789

10

111213141516

17

181920

21

2223

2425

123456

789

10

2. Citizen science projects have a genuine science outcome.

3. Both the professional scientists and the citizen scientists benefit from taking part.

4. Citizen scientists may, if they wish, participate in multiple stages of the scientific process.

5. Citizen scientists receive feedback from the project.

6. Citizen science is considered a research approach like any other, with limitations and biases that should be considered and controlled for.

However, unlike traditional research approaches, citizen science provides opportunity for greater public engagement and democratisation of science.

7. Citizen science project data and meta-data are made publicly available and where possible, results are published in an open access format.

8. Citizen scientists are acknowledged in project results and publications.

9. Citizen science programmes are evaluated for their scientific output, data quality, participant experience and wider societal or policy impact.

10. The leaders of the citizen science projects take into consideration legal and ethical issues surrounding copyright, intellectual property, data sharing agreements, confidentiality, attribution, and the environmental impact of any activities.

9.4 Guidance documentsSuch as the Green Paper - Citizen Science Strategy 2020 for Germany and others.

28

1

2

3

4

56

78

910

11

1213

141516

17

18

19

1

2

10 ReferencesFull references will be given, including hyperlinks.

29

1

2

1

2

Documentation on good practice in the handling of ... file · Web viewEcologic Word Vorlage Martin Strecker, C.O.S. Berlin Stand: Juni 2015

Documents