CEU eTD Collection Supervisor A thesis submitted to the Department of Environmental Sciences and Policy of Local environmental governance and environmental governance environmental Local : Prof. Alexios Antypas, CEU rules on the ground in Bulgarian municipalities Bulgarian in ground onthe rules Central European University inpart fulfilment of the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Plamen PEEV April, 2011 Budapest Regions Dr. Svetlozar Andreev, Committee of the Prof. Ruben Mnatsakanian, CEU PhD Committee : CEU eTD Collection European University. European place take may exploitation and disclosures which is availableunder from of Environmental Department Headof the the Sciences and Policy, Central conditions the on information Further Central University,European Budapest. Bulgarian municipalities. Peev, 2011. P.P. For bibliographic and reference purposes this thesis should be (3) referred to as: University, which will prescribe the terms and conditions of any suchand maybeagreement. made not availableuse by for written the thirdpermissionparties without which may in of the rights be this thesis described property of any intellectual ownership The is University, in vested the Central European any contrary, subject agreement the prior to to (2) writing) of the Author. made in with accordance such instructions may be permission madethe not without (in Librarian. the from obtained be may Details This Library. pagemust formof any part such copies made. copies (by Further any University of process) copies European Central the in lodged and Author by given the instructions with ininonly accordance Copyright made may be of text this thesis extracts, with rests of Copies (by the or full,Author. any either in process) (1) Notes on copyright andtheownership of intellectual property rights: Local environmentalLocal governance andenvironmental rules onthe ground in Doctoral thesis, Department of thesis,of Environmental Department Doctoral Sciences and Policy, ii CEU eTD Collection reference, etc. person, except bibliographical of by published formanother where the and/or in made iswritten acknowledgment previously materials appropriate no contains thesis this Furthermore, institute other or university other any or this of learning. of qualification or degree another for application No portion of the workAuthor’s declaration referred to in this thesis has been submitted in support of an iii ______Plamen PEEV CEU eTD Collection Keywords: been established. have potential governance with community and for value great with traditions and leaders environmental municipalities in rural Nevertheless, ofrules. capacity deploy thefull to - capital social and budget administration, larger with – position governance instronger are municipalities urban larger The processes. governance shape to potential with instances inmany found been have networks and markets Community, level governance. mode of multi- current the also defines that structure governance dominant emerged as have Hierarchies change. climate and protection in biodiversity e.g. – governance environmental level for suitable most not the levelis local cases some In interests. and capacity their and actors local by exemplified been has circumstances oflocal importance The administrations. local sanctioning and monitoring in guiding, and policies, ofenvironmental implementation indevelopment, position central its iskeeping administration national The funding. investment environmental large and new staff in rules, externalized arrangements ofnew governance symbol and force driving been has Europeanization The subjective. and weak rather also is enforcement Rule capacity. expert underdeveloped still and civilsociety weak administrations), municipal at resources and ofpowers (concentration centralism local traditionalism, system, rule-making closed powers, personalities’ and byleadership dominated are ingeneral governance and of rule-making patterns The agenda. on local stage initial at are or missing are change even climate and protection biodiversity and like soil areas whereas management waste for developed been has system rules’ sophisticated most The governance. environmental in local interest and capacity concerning position weaker infar found been have councils even and municipal businesses NGOs, like local actors Other realm. municipality’s the within rule-makers and actors central as been identified have administration municipal and Mayor types. these to related rules informal the well as as indetail beenexplored have strategic) and (legal rules of types main Two (how). process rule-making and (what) of rules object the (who), -actors rules of thesubject perspective: therules’ to applied been have governance of components Three level. local at processes rule-making and rules lensof the through explored been has LEG type. rural and urban of both bigmunicipalities and medium-sized represent municipalities Case observations. direct and sources document from and level, national at interviews from urban), Dobrich and Lukovit (Teteven, studies case in-depth three with research field from collected been has dissertation the for data The analysis. of unit and space governance local as research of the focus inthe been have municipalities Bulgarian management). wastewater and inwaste (notably field in environmental municipalities on Bulgarian responsibilities and new posed powers has practices and rules of Europeanization The level. local including levels, governance onall impacts with membership and accession Union(EU) European and globalization democratization, by been fuelled have in Bulgaria reforms governance of processes intensive The rules. and Europeanization governance, multi-level governance, environmental governance, oflocal theories underlying of the context theoretical the in explored been has LEG of concept The in Bulgaria. (LEG) governance environmental local of research inthe grounded is thesis The governance andenvironmental rules ontheground inBulgarianmunicipalities Plamen THESIS OF ABSTRACT PEEV for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy and entitled: local environmental governance, municipalities, actors, rules, rule-making, Bulgaria. rule-making, rules, actors, municipalities, governance, environmental local THE CENTRALEUROPEANUNIVERSITY submitted by: submitted Month and Yearof submission: April, 2011. iv Local environmental . CEU eTD Collection To the memory of my brotherStanislav. ofmy memory To the me. andlovefor home PeevGatevandVelichkaAngelovaGateva whoalways Petko have had parents my To light andhope. precious giftfromGodandhas is themost whobeen daughterMiaJohanna my my To night. my evening and day,my ways andcrises.my inallmy supported ismymorning, me and She who wasthemainreason andinspiration wifeKaidi to my To beginthis late studentship andspiritual intellectual journey.emotional, the dearest thesisto I dedicatethis persons who methroughoutthis have accompanied DEDICATION v CEU eTD Collection sustain you; He will never let the righteous fall.” (Psalm 55:22). Under God’s grace I am what am I grace God’s Under 55:22). (Psalm I am fall.” now. righteous the let never will He you; sustain meaning the understand better to and “Cast hope of your Lord words: Hewillthe the careson thesisexplore to them fully. By writing this thesis Ihave gained knowledge love, and support, manyIn my so are there heart people and feelingsleasta wholeI needat new that of gratitude Bulgaria in lastthe years. all changewe beandcouldsee shining the want to grim after the daystroubled and that storms mademe believepeople areeverywhere,talented even that in smallestthe of Bulgaria towns and AndreyStoev Hristo in Dobrich, Petrov Rosen and Vichev Hristo Petkova, Kovachev Teodora Lukovit; in Pechev Ivan and Ivanov Ivailo in Teteven; Dimitrov Tsvetan and Sabeva in Tsanka Alexiev, Sofiaunearthing and stories their me telling me andwith layers facts, emotionsandmake of ideas municipalities that hours they what are. People likespent many Marian that people all to others thankful am I are themunicipalities. todayBulgarian in governance environmental and tomorrowprovided me with everythingandasked for hadtime I share to their perspectives on of Bulgaria.NikolayMr. Pavlov and NinchevPetar Lukovit of – Mr. were open-minded leaders who TheydiscoveryThe mayors Dobrich of ofthe dissertation. - Mrs.Detelina Nikolova, of Teteven - metin I The people Bulgarian the municipalities whereIdid my case studies greatest were the Sasha and Arnold becausethey meshowed reality loveof the neighbour. for your life of meaning find and my faith keep to beyond the vanity support of the moment.spiritual I am thankful warmest to Stanislav their me and Juliyan,gave toRuslanpeople and Rita, to manyfedso had talks we that and me good with artistic lightness Manyand creative thoughts. in me whenever tea Rusevhosted in often hosts Sofia.needed deskor generous I Peter Sofia GanchevStamen Cholakov, andNasko mycolleagues from lawother the office in Sofia were this thesis. opportunity for the and financialSoros of scholarshipthe support and finishstart and to grants My sincere Centralthe goesto University gratitude European and its founder –Mr.George found their bestMaia ways lend to me a hand Medarova, and ideasKeti in many students difficult fellow My Gachechiladze, moments.ZsofiKatarina Korytarova, Szi-FerencFarhadwriting. Mukhtarov, and Sergio Tirado thesis about truths simple time on always me my at insights critical their with Richard andthesis defences.Dr. helpful Filcak prospectus wastheinvisiblevery were advisor whowastelling Mnatsakanian Ruben Prof. and Watt from his rest (andAndreev gave me larger the perspective of academic thinkingfamily) whileknowing stealing eveningbefore hours even me trusted who and me wellAntypas anddirectingAlexios guided me withProf. careful hand inmy supervisor the trailsto and trials the indebted of am thisI endeavour. Dr.essence Svetlozar of the thesis in a fruitfulmany people I met and worked with in the last 5yearspath. while preparing the thesis. have knowledge love,the would reachedProf. and not farI without support, encouragement of so Alan Acknowledgements vi CEU eTD Collection .Cs td fTtvnmncplt ...... 103 V. Case study of Teteven ...... municipality IV. Bulgarian 71 municipalities ...... - arena for LEG 56 III. Methodology...... 18 environmental rules...... TheoreticalII. travel from local environmental governance to local I. Introduction to the research on 1 local environmental ...... governance List of Abbreviations...... xiii xii List of Figures...... xi List of Boxes...... xi List of Boxes...... x ...... List of Tables Table of Contents...... vii Table ofContents 4.6.2. 98 Environmental andpolicy...... planning 97 ...... 4.6.1. Legislation 4.6. Sources of rules...... 94 4.5. Financial framework...... 91 4.4. Municipal competences in environmental field...... 87 4.3. Who are the local ...... 76 actors? 4.2. Bulgarian local governance...... 73 4.1. Introduction to local environmental governance in ...... 71 Bulgaria 3.5. Validity and reliability...... 69 3.4. Limitations...... 67 3.3. Data analysis...... 65 3.2. Case study research...... 59 3.1. Methods for data collection ...... 57 52 2.4.5. Types ...... of rules in the thesis 2.4.4. Emergence 49 of rules...... 48 2.4.3. Formal rules...... 45 2.4.2. Main concepts ...... about rules 43 ...... 2.4.1. Introduction 2.4. Analytical framework ...... 43 40 ...... 2.3.7. Europeanization 2.3.6. Multi-level 36 governance...... 34 2.3.5. Environmental governance...... 32 2.3.4. Local ...... democracy 31 2.3.3. Local actors...... 28 2.3.2. Local ...... governance 2.3.1. Governance 23 concepts...... 2.3. Theoretical framework ...... 23 2.2. Research domains of local environmental ...... 18 governance 2.1. Main theoretical discourses related to local environmental ...... 18 governance 1.7. Overview of the chapters...... 16 14 1.6.2. Case ...... municipalities 12 ...... 1.6.1. Bulgaria 1.6. Study focus...... 12 1.5. Contribution of the research...... 11 1.4. Research aim and questions...... 10 1.3. Overview of the research problem...... vii CEU eTD Collection VIII. Local environmental rules and rule-making 246 - a case of LEG...... VII. Case study of Dobrich 193 urban municipality...... VI. The case of Lukovit 155 municipality...... 5.8. Summary...... 150 5.7. Europeanization...... 146 5.6. Governance and rule-making factors...... 135 5.5. Rule-making process...... 127 126 5.4.4. Actors inrules...... 125 5.4.3. Rule ...... enforcement 121 5.4.2. Strategic ...... documents 119 5.4.1. Formal rules...... 5.4. Main environmental rules...... 119 5.3...... 111 Local actors 107 5.2.2. Environmental resources ...... and problems 104 5.2.1. Overall description ...... 5.2. Teteven as a case of Bulgarian municipality...... 104 5.1. Introduction to the ...... 103 case ...Ifra ue...... 273 8.2.5. Informal rules...... 269 ...... 8.2.4. Strategic rules 267 ...... 8.2.3. Legal rules 8.2.2. Types 264 and importance of rules...... 263 8.2.1. General observations ...... 8.2. Areas of local environmental rules...... 262 257 8.1.6. Local...... NGOs 255 8.1.5. Local business...... 253 ...... 8.1.4. Municipal council 251 8.1.3. Municipal ...... environmental experts 250 8.1.2...... Municipal administration 248 8.1.1. Mayors...... 8.1. Who makes the rules – importance of local actors and their real ...... 247 powers 7.9. Summary...... 242 7.8. Europeanization...... 241 7.7. Governance and rule-making...... 231 222 7.6.2. Rule-making ...... factors 219 7.6.1. The process in practice...... 7.6. Rule-making process...... 219 217 7.5.3. Rule ...... enforcement 212 ...... 7.5.2. Strategic rules 210 ...... 7.5.1. Formal legal rules 7.5. Main environmental rules...... 210 7.4...... 199 Local actors 7.3. Environmental context – resources and problems...... 196 7.2. Dobrich as a case of Bulgarian municipality...... 194 7.1. Introduction to the ...... 193 case 6.9. Summary...... 188 6.8. Europeanization...... 186 6.7. Governance and rule-making factors...... 182 6.6. Rule-making process...... 175 174 6.5.3. Rule ...... enforcement 170 ...... 6.5.2. Strategic rules 168 ...... 6.5.1. Legal rules 6.5. Main environmental rules...... viii CEU eTD Collection eeec it...... 329 ...... Reference list 8.12. Policy recommendations ...... 322 8.11.4. Local 319 environmental governance ...... – the way ahead 8.11.3. Effectiveness 317 and strength of rules...... 8.11.2. LEG 316 and municipal scale...... 311 8.11.1. Governance ...... structures 8.11. Conclusions...... 311 8.10. Is local level the right level for environmental governance?...... 3098.9. Multi-level governance...... 307 8.8. New era for local environmental governance and rules...... 302 8.7. Strong or weak local environmental governance...... 299 8.6.3. 297 Local interests and environment...... 296 8.6.2. Legal localism...... 295 8.6.1. “Not ...... inmy front yard” 8.6. Local circumstances...... 295 8.5. The State and the municipalities...... 293 292 8.4.4. Europeanization ...... –chapter one 8.4.3. Europeanization –atop-down 290 process...... 8.4.2. New local EU projects 289 staff...... 288 8.4.1. The...... European moment 8.4. Europeanization...... 288 285 8.3.6. Weak civil ...... society 8.3.5. Closed 283 rule-making system...... 280 8.3.4. Local ...... administrative “centralism” 8.3.3. Role of leadership 279 and personalities...... 278 8.3.2. Traditionalism...... 8.3.1. 276 Rule-making capacity...... 8.3. Features of rule-making...... 276 ix CEU eTD Collection Table 307 11 Findings about ...... the rule-making process Table 305 10 Findings about the actors inLEG...... Table 9 Findings about the 303subject of rules in LEG...... Table 8 Strategic 271 documents inthe case municipalities...... 269 Table 7 Main ordinances in the ...... case municipalities Table 6 Participants inthe development 259 of Environmental Protection ...... Programs. Table 5 Projects of Teteven 146 municipality (as ...... of 2010). Table 4 Municipal competencies and participationprocedures in 96 on environmental issues...... Table 3 Financial scheme of 91 OP Environment 2007-2013...... Table 2 Types of multi-level 38 governance...... Table 1 Distribution of Municipalities by 16 Groups Based ...... on Population. List ofTables x CEU eTD Collection Box 2 Programs and plans on municipal level.…………………………………………………………....…..100 onmunicipal plans Box and 2Programs Box 1Types competences…………….………………………………….…..…..90 ofenvironmental municipal List ofBoxes xi CEU eTD Collection Figure 160 6 Prohodna cave ...... (The eyes). Figure 5 The canyon 159 of Panega river...... 142 Figure 4 Earth’s day ...... Vitin Cherni village. “Vasiliovska planina”. The representatives 135 of RIEW ...... Pleven. Figure 3 Public presentation of the Minister’s order for designating aprotected area for bird protection Figure 2 Map of Bulgaria with the location 107 of Teteven highlighted...... 76 Figure 1 Map of ...... Bulgarian municipalities. rural List ofFigures xii CEU eTD Collection WMP – Waste Management Program Management Waste – WMP WMA – Waste Management Act SPA – Soil Protection Act Authorities Sub-National – SNA Assessment Environmental Strategic – SEA Water and Environment for Inspectorate Regional – RIEW PPA – Protected Areas Act Area Protected – PA Program –Operational OP Water and ofEnvironment Ministry – MoEW Development Plan Municipal MDP- Administration Local and Self-government onLocal Law – LLSLA Governance Environmental Local – LEG LN – Law on Noise LW – Law on Water Authority Local – LA Union European – EU Program Protection Environmental – EPP Act Protection Environmental – EPA Assessment Impact Environmental – EIA Resources Common-Pool – CPR Leva Bulgarian – BGN of Abbreviations List xiii CEU eTD Collection national and international environmental policy initiatives as the most appropriate site for site appropriate most the as initiatives policy environmental international and national by to referred often is making policy environmental of dimension and scale local The problematique. newenvironmental this to institutions governance and governmental different from responses social and political economic, require and implications local their have 2002) effects.Even new challenges such as climate change biodiversity or loss (Meadowcroft haveunleashed growing adverse and environmental that produce powers processes pressingamong most because times the ones the of industrial and post-industrial society andcauses.Environmentallocalsources their level, problems to to closer are processes governing the shifted and locally act to need the intensified has reality Such individuals. and communities nations, the of livelihood the for importance vital their lost not have regions and towns villages, real the village global a become has world if the Even way. ideas,moneymove globe the around to inand goods an amazing often butunpredictable a newsocial, economic to andtechnologies cultural contribute mixallows that people, andidentitynature culture, higher Openborders, are enormous. living, of standard new their preserve to communities local for globalization and urbanization of challenges life andsociety in general have- theirlocal dimensions, and sources impacts. The actions andactivitieslocalityhappen to locally. that or and– processes resources People, a to another or way in one related not problem imagine environmental one could Hardly 1.1. Introduction governance environmental onlocal research tothe Introduction I. 1 CEU eTD Collection environmental rules work. needs anddifficulties choicesshapethe of local that vis-à-vis in actors actors making other of local environmentalin governance Bulgaria (LEG) shed light is to processes, on the embedded inenvironmental of thestructure politics”. startingA pointgood for discussion and difficulties, impulsethe that so avoid hardto choices action andis postpone deeply scene iswhen pervaded with current the so about immediateworry to distant needstoo be loaded uncertain against to longthe “the aretoo and long-term run” and that outcomes “the political argues that 198) Rosenau (1997, processes of communities andtend states big policy ideas and rhetoric. illuminate potential to localemerge at that level and processes issues, actors beyond the local success of such agreements falls largelypeople national andthe organizations at to and and implementation “the that holds Rosenau scale global a on governance environmental in ofactors local cooperation communities (Rosenau 1997,213).While discussing the dependencethe interconnected of if at globalwe look agreements on participation and ofpublicresponsiblelarge for a services.” proportion global The and the local are maintains 1) (1991, action. Page “local that governmenteverywhere in is Europe for calling and duties new imposing governments local accordingly engage problems environmental of implications local The scale”. local the to, confined often yet and policy and policy arangeof environmentalactions on issues are“increasingly evident at, policy intervention (Gibbs and 2000,299).Gibbs Jonas and Jonas (2000, 303)claim that levels” (emphasis local Aresearchon added). environmental governance has the 2 CEU eTD Collection formal rules steer and regulate the positions and attitudes of the actors atlocal actors of the level.formal positions andattitudes the and regulate rules The steer administrativeRules providevaluable procedures. a prospective based on premisethe that by strict and etc. permits, concentrations, limits of by thresholds, highly regulated involved significant and how in processes these they Environmentalare. governance is local level could be tracked downat municipal level. (Art.135, of par.1 the BulgarianConstitution) economic, andmain social environmental and processes at “the basic administrative the level at territorial unit of which self-government shall be practiced” EnvironmentalProtection Act, Lawthe on Municipal Self-governance and Municipal Administration) as locus of research institutionally legallyand recognized by the Bulgarian Constitution laws and (e.g. the 1 localdeveloped at level My scientificis local interest focused on environmental governance viewed rules through Background1.2. governance levelswith interact local level. other how and happens rule-making how and about rules the are what involved, is who - level local at governance explore to lens analytical original provides discourse Rules’ realm. municipality’ within rule-makers and actors leading the and municipalities Bulgarian study findings and documentanalysis distributionthe of decision-making powersin andtheoretical of analytical inshows thecourse rules.It discussion invoked by casethe make andwith environmental anddifferent interact act to steer how each other actors e.g. level environmental of governance itexamines institutional frameworks and structures, rules andrule-making to theircorrelation emerginglocal at level. Descending local the to environmentalgovernance, andEuropeanization governance, multi-level governance and environmental governance in Bulgaria theexisting based on discourses theoretical on local This establishes dissertation new analytical a for conceptualisingground of local When referring When tolocal level will I refer to municipal level as municipalities in Bulgaria will be main 1 , how they are structured, created and implemented, who is 3 CEU eTD Collection the front-runners of of EUaccession front-runners the Czech – Poland, Republic, Hungary (Schimmelfennig the Whenscholars Central represented. Europe turningand somehow Eastern prefer to and evenisin relatively Europe Central and Eastern poorly researched and empirically andelsewhere environmentalthe Western Europe governance atlocal level in Bulgaria governancein collected anextensive body of coveringliterature cases from USA and proliferating of theories local governance, environmental governance and multi-level and elaborated the to applications In contrast inregional context. broader EU-wide or local governance at level and Bulgarian the case could feed further research agendas and The theoretical underpinning practical reasons. is theneed of research of environmental BulgariaThe choice of researchhas asacasecountry for the emerged forand theoretical last more10 years than by andaccession membership. EU the EU process andintensityThe scope 504). of governance in processes Bulgaria are also in triggered the moregranted than previously, making thus animpact nationalon players” (Riishoj 2007, “Theinstitutions European actors. andauthorities andother EUrules aretaken for hasnewgovernance opened possibilities space EU and responsibilities for local level impacts Union of European (Schimmelfennig(EU) and Sedelmeier 2005; Bache 2008). hasEuropeanization already become aleadingin academic concept literature on the governance. informal of the contemporary picture the localunderstand environmental to ones rules (municipal ordinances) and rules and strategic (programs strategies) and detecting rationale of the research is examineto the rules emerging on the ground starting from legal 4 CEU eTD Collection roles of regional and local governments in multi-level governance by involving sub- governance in multi-level governments local and regional of roles level sufficiently achieved central eitherat level by Memberthe regionalStates, at or and “shallEU only act if and in far beso action objectivescannot asthe of proposed the which according decisions asclosely to be taken areto as possible citizenthe to and that par.3) (Art.5, Union European on Treaty in the principle subsidiarity the in proclaimed as for my Another reason interestisresearch EU’spolitical emphasis actions atlocal on level and campaigning. from businessesin management inwaste NGOs participation servicesraisingawareness to municipalitiesenlarged but by make economicthe – anddemocratic actors choices other through rules Bulgaria hasthepotential of a promising academic journey.The analysis of of rules exploration the of local 2002) (Mason environmentalcontext” governance in particular a in work things “how understand to important is rules of analysis the Since theoretical applications remains largely undiscovered. local environmental governance with clear empirical andanalysisaccounts of of its case the Still 2005). Sedelmeier and Schimmelfennig in Europe Eastern and Central on (e.g. governance on debate the to contributions voluminous their have governance multi-level and Europeanization 2010). (Dimitrova perspective rules EU from Bulgaria like countries other Bulgaria. Only very recently publications could one read refer to that and Sedelmeier669; Riishoj 2004, maybe2007), empirical alsopoor dueto accounts from ” (emphasis added).On-going policy EU level processes at aim at strengthening of at local level is focused on legal and institutional competence of competence institutional and legal on focused is level local at governance local 5 CEU eTD Collection implement environmental legislation at local level and an UNDP project Conservation of Conservation project UNDP an and level local at legislation environmental implement project areas other ofon and policy legislation environmental EU of transferimplementation and building capacity on from international (seealsoTableprocedures There aremany 1). completed and focused on-going projects and EU levels. Tolocal to level powers participation in andof encouraged various mention actors environmental only two – a EU(„everypeoplenew month law“). - In the last number years agood of new laws delegated The EU legal approximation agreements. environmental byinternational as well as obligations membership by EU later has left the markwitnessed intensive legal and institutional changes in Bulgaria fuelledof by accessionEU and constant change myon practical experience asalegal andandin consultantexpert law-drafting Ihave projects. instability on preliminary on rests thesisThe choicethe topic of research theliterature and findings butalso planning, public servicestransport, and social policies” 3 f5f1a1e9bd73. http://www.cor.europa.eu/pages/PresentationTemplate.aspx?view=detail&id=d25d670f-82ad-4d12-8590- 2 suchas the education, sectors Union nearly 95 000 Governance by“Within that Committee forth the sets Regions of the (2009) European the The draftstrengthening democracy” White 2009). Paperon European (CoR, Multilevel thereby policies, Community of implementation and in “development authorities national http://www.bamee.org/tasks.php. Committee of the Regions. 2009. White Paperon Multilevel Governance. 3 aimedstrengthening administrative at the capacity of local governments to local and regional currentlyauthorities have significant in powers key environment , economic , and development, country town 2 (emphasis added). 6 CEU eTD Collection 4 local level. environmentalthe finds –to research ground the policies, its way to rules and practices at and domestic changes in institutional and legal framework (Knill and Lenschow 2001)the transfer rule EU enlargement, EU of notions grand of level the From thought. of schools premises governance of (local, environmental and multi-level) and Europeanization gathering data and of analysis,in course the abstracted based large on the theoretical Bulgarian local environmental governance. prepositions These have and been detected theoretical and empirical rulesprepositions and about rule-making explaining the of nature The thesis hasmostly explorative modes and background, ambitions.generates It 1.3. Overview of the research problem observation, casestudies and reading of documents in local language. circumstancesbe could critical for in-depth qualitative analysis which entails direct researchmethodologythe test inhas shownknowledge 2008 to that of local language and associationswith hasfed research the valuable insights.A inpilot study conducted Estonia My experience choice, with localtoo. research the government authorities and studies;(documents –governmental personal reports, andcommunication) other guided forms in all and levels governmental all at Bulgaria in information to access better The management programs. objectives sector intoproductive ecosystem and biodiversity integrate to capacity institutional the strengthening at aimed Mountains Rhodope Bulgaria’s of Landscape the in Biodiversity Significant Globally http://www.undp.bg/uploads/images/997_en.pdf. 7 4 CEU eTD Collection undergoing dynamic processes. slow and uneven subject to withinchanges they now operate largethe EUspace almosteverybut day brings anew challengeif that so before Bulgarian implications municipalitiessocial and were financial institutional, the measure to hard is It way. unprecedented in an agenda policy local the shape legislation national the through transposed or applied directly rules EU dimension. local significant a governance multi-level of picture legalinstitutional scope, capabilities multifaceted the addto of actors andinterests these ingrounded obligations, the rights, working practices and perceptions of local The actors. with observed analyticalEuropeanization the magnifying lens of rules. rules These are environmental environmental on debate of the governance aspart governance and research and fieldworkThe desktop evidences have together brought localabout participants.and other making requireparticipation ofnational processes of authorities, non-governmental actors decision- environmental hand, other the On like. the and projects EU-funded for initiatives participate in administrativeinitiate SEA); to EIA, (e.g. and coordinate procedures ordinancesbecause manylocal pass governmentstoo, to to aredelegated competences context, and laws andof state the legal local context ordinances. This notion applies Bulgarianthe orders, to localgovernments, citizen and major groups local businesses and they placetake in the to imposeEnglish fines; to adopt environmental strategies, and to et al . (1999) argue that local-scale that argue decisions. (1999) limited are often local to 8 CEU eTD Collection NATURA 2000 sites and of populationthe in general (Interview N05 given frontlinethey the that are at matter with the facing objections of landownersthe in deal to information and capacity without surprise by caught being authorities municipal communicateto authorities environmental of failure The policies. investment their to limitations possible of properly fears of because municipalities for syndrome my front/backyard” in “not the rationaleelsewherein designation thesis, the the and maintenance of these areas became another of the network and site management resulted in of the case municipality and Nstands for interviews at national level. 6 5 habitats” of most“Europe’s valuable protection aims better network and at species threatened and 2000 NATURA communities. local before as well as authorities regional and national management of largedeadlinesinvestment short andprojects, accountability before EU, of terms in municipalities Bulgarian to challenges severe impose landfills, regional new in especially investments, management waste The protection. biodiversity and management capacity and involvement from municipalities. onlyexamples:take two To waste of environmental Europeanization the However, rules requires certainly leadership, authorities. and politicians national from pressure administrative and rhetorical strong and benefits financial of because rule-making local dominate rules EU surprisingly Not The The code attached to interview numbers means the following: Thecapital letterstands for the first letter EuropeanCommission: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/index_en.htm. 5 and Bulgaria has the second widest network of protected areas. and As Bulgaria discussedof protected has secondwidest the network 6 ). 9 CEU eTD Collection governance in Bulgaria could be made? institutional arrangementsrule-making of and for effective procedures local environmental Research question4: municipalities? Bulgarian in rules environmental environmentalemerged from that governance empirical the local on accounts Research question 3: Question 2.3. Howare rules made – the rule-making process with its main features? in management,e.g. waste management? biodiversity water protection, mainWhatare the 2.2. Question types of rules – legal and strategic and in which areas, Question 2.1. Who are the main local actors? governed? is it how and is governed what isgoverning, who of in terms in Bulgaria governance Research question 2: framework? institutional and legal Research question 1: environmental define rules to and shape local environmental governance in Bulgaria. local of importance the is dissertation in the discussed problem research main The 1.4. Research aim and questions stances of array of actors inhabiting the action arenas (Ostrom 2007, 32) of LEG. asmuchresearch aspossible in both national and local circumstances and in governance the grounding governance environmental local of picture complex unveilsthe thesis The How is Bulgarian local environmental governance defined by the defined governance environmental local Bulgarian is How How do local environmental rules represent local environmental local represent rules environmental local do How What are the main factors, structures and tendencies mainWhat are the of local structures factors, What policy recommendations for improvement of legal and legal of improvement for recommendations policy What 10 CEU eTD Collection institutionsall at governmentlevels face challenges the to of new rules. EU in-depth analysis agrounded proposes wide of the transformation of organizations and consideredwidely in academic and debates thesis the takesastepin this direction. It policies, preferences and practices, participantslocal (Marchall level at 2005) has been not The Europeanization of asthey ground. the localhappen on processes environmental Bulgarian municipalities provide rich evidence basis for understanding of local governance of environmental picture complete the governance. Detailed casestudiesto in three important particularly is perspective local The transition. environmental and economic which in Europe MembershareEastern similarStates history recent of rapid social, of environmentalresearch governance inwith EU special relevance for new the EU in the insights empirical add municipalities Bulgarian from collected data qualitative The policies. environmental of implementation and decision-making in roles withinrecommendations actors multi-level for the enhancegovernance framework their to policy provides It problems. environmental addressing and policies environmental in general theeffectiveness and on local of governance at level for implementing policy areas andgovernance levels. research feeds The in LEG theoretical debateson the other to applied be could and is innovative governance to approach This framework. isLEG of explored within The concept governance. rules’ discourse as analytical rules andconceptualization rule-making.of to local contributes actors, environmentalIt isThe research primarily the local focused on level of environmental governance: on 1.5. Contribution of the research 11 CEU eTD Collection are still on their way to local level with all stumbling stones of low administrative capacity, administrative low of stones stumbling all with level local to way their on still are rules environmental most legislation national the into transposed Even Union. European legislationhappenedrecently most that accessionbefore ofBulgaria the andafter the to environmental and governance, environmental governance, local fieldof in the processes these explores thesis The EU. of standards environmental the with comply to timeframe short very a within principles new on established framework legal and institutional Member sinceEU and- has it 2007 State passed through revolutionary upgrading of its Whatmakes Bulgaria studying? acaseworth is - a It acountry from Europe new Eastern Bulgaria 1.6.1. 1.6. Study focus governance rules.EU adherence to facedenvironmental andlocal governance reforms, EUaccession and henceprocess leastwith whichnew fromat EUMember Europe Eastern have or States countries EU other with analysis comparative further for ground fruitful a establishes dissertation The its conceptualization. and governance environmental local of exploration to contribution valuable isalso (how) subject and rulesperspectives (what), (who) process of governance: from object three the of analysis The decisions. financial and institutional their guide and authorities municipal policy represent couldbehaviourvisions beenforcedlatter and the that and goals of the andgovernance:of power legal rules and rules. strategic Theformer are standards of The typology of rules applied in thesisthe is also original and sources exploresstrong two 12 CEU eTD Collection (decentralized) level of local government municipalities”– the (Ivanov in Bulgaria structure territorial and wascharacterized be relative stability of lowestthe environmental “During concepts. yearsgovernance the of transition, administrative the and governance local of light the in case Bulgarian the explain shortly would I EnvironmentOperational Programs and Regional Development. field.thisIn addition mandate to they are beneficiaries of large shares of funds under the yearsbecause municipalities becamelegislate entitled to in and manage environmental the role of still in The local expect. environmental actors to governance has increased in recent establishedfullyas yet decentralizationandthe is an ongoingwith process many results between central democraticand model local of cooperation administrations is not political economy marketregimeand values democratic to andinstitutions. the However, communist and economy planning from transformation historic a underwent country The 2000). sudden changes andslowto traditionalism reaction of governinglocal at level (Drumeva and downs in putting of environmental issues on political agenda. Environmental agenda. political on issues environmental of in putting downs and (SwianiewiczThe history 2005,104). of post-communistthe Bulgaria is marked with ups new new on responsibilitiesthe localtake that ready argumentgovernmentsto arenot administration gradual reform.The central state wasvery decentralizehesitantto with the local The 2005). governance reforms in Bulgaria arecharacterized by delay followed(Delcheva by a exercised” is self-governance local which at unit territorial and administrative main isthe municipality the level: single a on “realized is Bulgaria in governance et al . 2002). Local . 2002). 13 CEU eTD Collection wards within the large municipality), as well as of small municipalities I have focused on focused have I municipalities small of as well as municipality), large the within wards citiesPlovdiv - more and local (with elaborated Varna of municipalgovernmentstructure biggest the and Sofia capital the - municipalities” “super the of exclusion of method the By 2005, 670). simply experienced pressures the by to compared rural areas andsmall (Marshalltowns be not could that constrains and tendencies economic external and internal to exposed areashaveThe urban types.specific their environmental conditions and problems, are review ensure equal of representation their of both rulesto in ordinances and other order and interviews through municipalities urban other investigated have I addition In type. urban for one and municipalities rural for definition the with comply two cases 3 selected the From municipalities. large and medium-sized small, between and municipalities, of The choicecase municipalities divide on the rests between urban and rural Casemunicipalities 1.6.2. environmental governance in Bulgaria asexplainedlength at in II. chapter of environmentalthe Europeanization In this the regard policy is aleading feature of acquis with very few transition and periods negotiated became a member of EU in 2007. (AndonovaIn the next 2004,159). years Bulgaria transposedin a pressing fashion EU the 1990s” late inthe particularly Bulgaria, in reforms environmental the reinvigoration in role considerable a played accession EU for conditions environmental “the only environmentalthe Later 2004). considerations were andmarginalized their supporters and (Andonova communism to opposition the of frontline and core the at been had movements 14 CEU eTD Collection institutional framework for rules and rule-making. and rules for framework institutional and legal the considering municipalities of majority the of representative are and urban and rural types: municipality Bulgarian main the in insights provide and municipalities preclude mainthe not does argumentthey that are selected by theoretical sampling of conclusion relevancethe about and representativeness ofthecasestudy municipalities This excluded. are municipalities smallest the and municipalities large of 2 Group the from Plovdiv and Varna if Sofia, population country total the of more even and municipalities (Dobrich urban)000 andTeteven) above 75 more represent than a half of all Bulgarian shows selected the casemunicipalities between and10 000 30000people (Lukovit and dissertation. differencesthe As these Tablethe 1belowhaveout throughout pointed specificsencountered could distinguish that municipalitiesthe have theirI according type to I When municipalities. large and medium-sized small, to applicable are rules strategic and legal concerning findings research the Still municipalities. large and medium-sized 15 CEU eTD Collection research. collection anddata analysis, selection ofthecasestudies and the the process of field clarifies rules.The thirdchapter methodology applied the in theresearch methods- the for and Europeanization governance, multi-level governance, environmental governance, local theoretical the framework of research–thetheories on andgovernance of the governance, theresearchdomain on focuses of chapter The second localresearch. environmental study focus, the underlyingThe thesis is divided intoeight first The chapters. the background, introduces chapter research1.7. Overview of the chapters problem and questions, andSource: Ivanov the contribution Population. on Based Groups by of Municipalities Distribution 1 Table of the Total Group 5 Group 4 Group 3 Group 2 Group 1 Groups Below 92 10,000 30,000 10,000– 75,000 30,000– Above 20 75,000 Sofia Population et al . 2002. 262 110 39 1 Municipalities of Number 100.00 41.98 14.89 0.38 Municipalities of % 35.11 7.63 100.00 23.40 21.42 14.79 Population of % 7.17 33.21 31,263 17,426 44,990 1,211,531 Municipality Population per Population/ Municipalities Average 6,387 136,011 16 CEU eTD Collection governance in Bulgaria. environmental local of status the improve to suggested is recommendations policy a list prevailingmunicipal governance structures, scale, effectiveness of andrules. strength A application multi-level of about Bulgarian governance to local and about context findings with concludes chapter The governance. environmental local of main factors central government of and local powers Europeanization, circumstances are among the mainthe areasof environmental rules of andfeatures rule-making the process. actors, local of importance and powers the analyses It level. national on and municipalities The final summarizeseighth chapter from results research the the inboth case Europeanization. on environmental rules,rule-making and governance and factors processes, structures finally main their on discussion by followed actors, local the then municipality, case the of context environmental and overall the first examine studies case The municipality. urban municipality,Teteven - of Lukovitmunicipality VI chapter of Dobrich - and VII chapter casemunicipalitiesthree in VdiscussesBulgariaChapter caseof the arepresented. are discussed.fifth From from results seventh field chaptersthe the through research in and definesactors The main their competences. of sources rules in legislation and planning of frameworkenvironmental local governance at level in Bulgariaempowers local that financial and institutional legal, into insights detailed provides chapter fourth The 17 CEU eTD Collection making. In conclusion theoretical Europeanization. viewsthe it reaches to on rules and rule- linkedgovernance andthe ongovernance, multi-level concepts governance and signstheoretical of anddemocracy),localthe environmental governance (actors The theoretical placejourney in dissertation the atheoretical context. follows the The following sections shortly map researchof the local environmental governance to 2.2. Research domains oflocal environmental governance rules’governancebe discussed. needtheories related to to the Additionally Union. European the within governance multi-level and Europeanization The EU membership 2000). governance andPeters (Pierre predisposes reference to local of forms new manifest level, local at including institutions, domestic and EU between the recent years, both processes resulting in processes years, both recent the governance andof growingthe importance of environmental local governance at level in scenethe asanalyticalset basis ofthe shiftexploration for from local government local to environmental discussion the theoretical premisesgovernance to -are andcontribute that theirrelevance mymain for Two –of localresearch. concepts governance and explaining by chapter inthis systematically them review will I Bulgaria. in governance environmental local of research the for avenues provide thought of schools of A number governance 2.1. Main theoretical discourses related to local environmental environmental rules governance tolocal from environmentallocal travel Theoretical II. new LEGrules in Bulgaria. The links 18 CEU eTD Collection management (Smiley management public participation asin presented thecaseof public involvement RiverHunter Basinat challengesthe A third perspective research relatesLEGto effective to and appropriate biodiversity planningaction defines LEG aspeople-driven and geographically embedded. analysisthe a policy of in process specific policy area. Evans in(2004) a study on for application Anotherand context 50). Isui of 2002, LEG found(Barrett in literature is implementation throughmultisectoral partnerships; and networking (6)cross-border joint (5) agenda; sustainability the of framing comprehensive (4) management; stakeholder(2) dialogues; consensual(3) knowledgeinputs; base-building for local pluralistic environmentalfor allowing structures decision-making open flexible, (1) of: promotion include that goals six with LEG of ideal-type envisioned internationally an describe authors The Janiero. de in Rio Development and Environment of Conference Nations international level Agendaand28 of in Chapter based 21 on adopted United1992 atthe at initiated 21 Agenda Local like process policy broad a of analysis in employed and local development(Bonfiglioli In oneinstance2004). and Isui (Barrett 2002) LEG is The term has management been concerningused in resources e.g. nature various contexts, local environmentalandlevel. to relate at occur governancethat and processes without building concepthas LEG. The havebeen been applyingused to approaches narrow some rather widespreaduse than theira clarity singularityor of meaning”strong (SampfordScholars 2002). theory Local environmental governance is “characterized oneof concepts morethese by their about it but rather by referring to its elements – et al . 2010). One of One . 2010). of significantthe conclusionsauthors’ about 19 CEU eTD Collection authority and to provide resources and incentives for working in partnership with other with in partnership working for incentives and resources provide to and authority support and andhousing. conclude isthere provide authors The that aneed more politicalguidanceto both planning transport, like reduction emissions on impact significant with areas in topotential local their given policies change climate with governing of authorities authorities local of ability the and Germany and UK in policies protection climate local explore (2006) toKern and Bulkeley enable them to use traditional(Grönholm 2010, 242). formsand local park inhabitants view it“asabove somewhatand,distant all, local” not of public participation is almostnon-existentbecause of centralised the management of the managementthe of a national has shownpark antipathy by some local The stakeholders. Finland,country, Nordic another asaleader recognized in areas management of protected even inprotection afront-runner country like Norway (Falleth and Novik 2009).In evenlocal favour developmentand local expense environmental atthe interests of stronger conservationpolicytheir on stance in biodiversity players weak arerather or protection climate change policy management. waste and Local to governments when assessed on mediaand –from components conservation andnature management of national to parks environmental sectors, in various governance environmental on debate the to related andbeyondEurope local and arenas, policyThroughout actors processes are closely dissertation. in local actors environmental importancestate of governance is highly relevant forthis 20 CEU eTD Collection political institutionaland for effective context public engagement Bullprocesses of importance the of in UKand management inwaste governance the of discussion In and Kern 2006, 2255). local governmentthat can play so a significantactors role in climate (Bulkeley protection stakeholder is to take personal responsibility personal take is stakeholder to for decisionsaffect that them.” (Bull influential potentially a as citizen individual if the contexts, policy with engagement where ‘localism governance context is king’ is there need urgent for more responsive a “In situation. Bulgarian on discussion the with parallels provides message important one conclusions their In legislation. by supported services, disposal and recycling collection, of in delivery and provision infrastructure in both sector private of involvement 992) observe tendencies (2010, in local managementwaste have that increased the from waste and minimisation.” waste and (Watson Bulkeley 2005, 415). recovery landfill, from waste of diversion for responsibilities as well as composting, and radically agenda broadened withperformance for recyclingprogressive targets statutory efficientvehicle movements and arelatively rangeof haveregulations,narrow today a managementteams which until themselvesconcern recently had to with little more than andengagementlocal of processes readsas authorities follows: “Local authority waste local of importance growing the about argument telling One policy. waste municipal UK Bulkeley (2005) whoreflect policiesthe on and processes underlying transformation the of Further insights1008). 2010, in municipal waste management provide Watson and et al et al 21 . . CEU eTD Collection at local levelbeat scrutinized needs to that also theoreticallybut a concept through only exploringfor not arena andcategory environmental andprocesses policies occurring ingovernance in general or specific of this approach areas.The thesis is different. is LEG explainand local dimensions, characteristics of andenvironmental controversies varioushaveIn sum, research that LEG isbeen to adapted agendas aconcept discuss to documents. policy of developing in authorities local local levelto powers has shown implementation deficiency and need for assistance for and managementenvironmental programs waste plans.protection delegation The of like outputs implementation on and governments local of role the on focused is governments by providinganalysis involved.and factors processes of actors, His research local Polish by policy environmental national of implementation the examines (2008) Banas level. local at policy environmental of implementation is topic relevant Another havepressure evolved in differentways” (Fernandez were equally timethe underdeveloped accession, of at their national EU responses to because “while matters pressure EU environmental policies in countries Southern three the importantconclusion that bears importance for this dissertation is that national response to expansion regionalthe to of opportunity the structure and local levels” One (Portugal). and“centralist (Greece) privateadministrative cooperation” culture preventingpublic- the impairing distrust administrative of culture a importantly, more and, consultations Bulgaria,latitude closer to (Fernandez Evidencesenvironmental about governance in general from and Greece,a Portugal et al . 2010, 572) show “irregular. 2010, of patterns et al . 2010, 574). . 2010, 22 CEU eTD Collection are not endowed withendowed formalare not authority”5). (Rosenau 1992, they though effectively even function which activity, of sphere in a mechanisms regulation public decision-making based on loose networks of individuals”a “set (John of 2001) to collectiveThe definitions actors. of governance further vary from “flexible of pattern instruments and mechanisms on focuses governance Additionally, sanctions. and regulations by steering ofgoverning”process (Lafferty governance2004) is associated with governmental disciplines…” (MinneryBeside326). its 2007, directlinguistic reference as “the actor home idea the governance of hasbeen of discourses absorbedthe intoa number of thesis.frameworkfor the theoretical Despite “the the varioussets uncertaintiesits about and governance environmental and ingovernance local insight overarching the provides in “governance” on of departure thisThe literature servesaspoint theoretical journey. It Governance concepts 2.3.1. 2.3. Theoretical framework drawn. fieldmapa theoretical emerging andissuesthe for journey there, the actors andto will be of them could be transferred intothe Bulgarian context and vice versa. Before going tothe although all issues experienced familiar sound Europe in and Northern Southern and most Bulgaria. –inThe research Member a newEU of State Bulgaria is definitely a new case context in the evolving governance environmental local of dynamics and structure the on focusing allows approach This rule-making. and rules environmental local by analytically and governance environmental and governance local of discourses underpinning designed to amend and channel the behaviour of the individual individual and the of behaviour the channel and amend to designed 23 CEU eTD Collection networks and communities. The governance as governance The communities. and networks identify arrangementscommon of fourgovernance: structural hierarchies, markets, in thisand adopted (2000) thesis the case Peters study through analysis. The authors frame analysis to the approach One well governance of isstructured offered by Pierre and boundary and civilof state the society”(Bevir andRhodes 2003,3). the at networks through and with specifically field, “governing in this actors non-state public decision-making increasing and the of interdependenceand degree betweenstate self-organized increasingThe term the iscapture usednetworks. to fragmentation of the new publicgovernance, management, governance”, socio-cybernetic “good system and lists He autonomy from usesof the governance, state”. asminimalthe corporate state, characterized by exchange,interdependence,rules resource game of the and significant definition another for governance as“self-organizing,interorganizational networks “shift” from effectiveregulation to means of achieving change. offers Rhodes(1997) and accountability.co-ordination Laffertycharacterizes governance further as (2004) a of dilemmas to responses and initiatives policy new networks, new reform, institutional The ideal typegovernance of elaborated by John has(2001) four key elements: where various economic actors can cooperate to resolve common to problems. Governance cancooperate where various economic actors Governance as surrendered its legal institutions”authority these over (Pierre and 2000). Peters subnationalthe government“enjoyed never some degreeof state autonomy the but “essentially wheregovernance by by law” structures, conducted vertical state integrated markets essentially sees governance as a resource-allocating mechanism hierarchies (also in Daly, 2003) is 2003) Daly, in (also 24 CEU eTD Collection incorporation (Daly 2003). societal and implementation policy policy-making, sphere, public dimensions: four of consisting framework analytical an is governance view Daly’s In implementation. recognizedstakeholdersare into and of processes the incorporated policy making and These and interest groups. suchasNGOs management stakeholders with other relationships,governmentagencies less aremore equal or inpartners environmentalthe these Within 2003). (Daly policy” of implementation and orientation the framing, and groups interest different of positioning (re) the society, civil to relationship its and state the of role the levels, national and regional local, among relationships “the of consists beprimarily associated with andto governanceits diverse a process Moreover, agents”. to (hierarchy)control andgovernance which impliesrefer form to a“network of control, DalyAccording government to (2003) is synonymous with a particular mode of societal community. the into responsibility collective of sense introduce to means a as or community of differentgovernmentat levels decide whichmatters on can resolvedbe by better members having to alternative an as seen is Communitarianism involvement”. state minimum a with problems common their “resolve should and can communities that is model components in policy the The underlyingprocess”. idea of “governance as “embody networks considerable and expertise and interestarevaluablerepresentation policy. where is the There amutual and networks the dependence thestate between andenhances alonginterests resources efficiency with the in implementationthe of public as networks is wheregovernancefacilitates of coordination public the and private communities 25 ” CEU eTD Collection dominant on global scale through liberalization of trade and movement of capital, services capital, of movement and trade of liberalization through scale global on dominant local at level: globalization and of democratization society. Globalization became them of are of leasttwo vitalat butagenda, importance for understanding of processes the frontlinethe havegovernanceare several to that There of brought reasons environmental environmental 2001,12). standards” (EC to funding structural and agriculture from policies EU implementing for responsible lastfifteenregions, cities closerit to years and has brought localities, which are now policy in a more sufficientway because “the expansion Union’sof the activitiesin EU the over levels local and regional involve should administrations national and EU level. local importance of application principlesof these all at governance levels from globalthe to participation,accountability, effectiveness, TheWhitecoherence. Paperrecognizes the level”The main8). 2001, principles (EC governance in of good EU areopenness, affect and way behaviourthe that processes in which areexercised powers atEuropean defines Governance 2001) White European (EC on paper governance as “the rules, governance objectives”its of strategic asone European EU The (Bouwen 2007, 272). the of reform the identified 2000’s early the “in Commission European of document public (Schimmelfennig andprivate actors” and Sedelmeier A 2004,674). strategic in negotiated decentralized andcooperation, horizontal settings betweenco-ordination on governance” based refers“network to latter whereasthe and steering by state control, the hierarchicalgovernance”. former The refers to and vertical of command,processes couldEU governance be The characterized by modes –“old governance”two and “new 26 CEU eTD Collection arrangements. Such conclusions are proposed in the final chapter of this dissertation. by furthereddevelopedand new societal, legal, political economicor conditions and local couldconcludethat inweak we environmentalare place or governance has be to If somesingle and governance elements dominates outcomes. processes the arenot actor decisionsstrategic and in in everyday implementation,both where neither aformal system a nor processes decision-making collective of cases possible, if discover, to attempts It structures. municipal governance Bulgarian of constructs the within exist which local at environmentallevel. governance about process the question tackles the It rules happens explains identifyingof thesisthe approach to the influential most of aspart actors The relationship in between rules andsettings wherecollective actors decision-making organizations” (emphasis 3). 2009, added)(Chhotray and Stoker formal system relationship of the terms control the can dictate and between these actors making thesis:of research question the “governance isthe about governance could be which suggests operationalized the authors mainthe approach to environmentalthe all Onedefinitionat 9). scales 2009, (Chhotray and Stoker of like problems intractable to find solutions to in order thoughts and experiences of sharing because itempowers individuals and communitiesparticipate in to governance through has Democratization integration. of becameEU context auniversal valuepursue to andpeople by and development of free economic spaceslike EUandgovernance in the in settings where there is in settings aplurality wherethere organizations or and whereof actors no rules ofcollective decision- 27 CEU eTD Collection and power in local and outer world and at the samethe in time andat localand world power aspace transcended byand outer the whendissertation delineating administrative the andlegal boundaries between authority Indeed “the local”252). 1984, (Foucault becomes metaphor and discourse for this governance frameworkin the thesis. “Spaceis fundamentalany to exercise of power” “theof local” main isthe The concept of one rationales behind application the of local perspective. national from institutions local of analysis This thesis provides arguments in this lightbased in-depththree on governance. case studies and additional environmental local of core the at still is conditions- institutions, people, – dimension local” “the but in Bulgaria agenda environmental the determine administration and policy environmental national and requirements EU The protection. environmental and largeoperation discretion of local especially actors in such a highly regulated areaas leavesometimesregulations that not legal, do financial administrativeor space for interdependenceof world of andprocesses governance, and national of strong and EU thesisThe place the charts and of role Bulgarian local environmental governance in a of rapid course the policy developments. environmental governance by bringing and in in interests tasks new requirements, actors, membership.consequent The new rules arechanging Bulgarian of nature the local and pressing challenges of environmental by geared accession EU andprotection They becauseimportant local are institutions andpractically everyone faces on-goingthe The local shedgovernance light theories on local rules and in processes actors, Bulgaria. Local 2.3.2. governance 28 CEU eTD Collection services”. in delivering involved sectors, voluntary and private public, the from drawn organizations, is“best the Rhodesgovernment”, (1997) aphrasecaptures amalgam that according to of leadership Local reform (Denters and governance Rose2005,253-255). transformation of local local governmentgovernanceto demands managerial and and new participatory demands (micro-They andmeso-trends).the argue that urbanization,globalization, andnew substantive(macro-trends) Europeanization demands, functions: their perform governments local which within environments political localof They governance. outline some mainpredominate socio-economicthat trends and Denters and Rose (2005, 2-6) claim that there is a new era for local government – the age municipality do notget high consideration for the local actors. allfallbe presumed not that andproblems do scope authority the into that of the could it So, duty. municipal a not is management their and municipalities the of boundaries administrative the follow not do areas protected the example, For issues. environmental many over jurisdiction of question the of because important is dimension local local capacity decision-makingfor strategic feeds analysis the of LEG rule-making.The mainas the power elements of “the local”.of The discussionthe local contours on the and relationships and management of change she defines physical proximity, identity, scale and decision-makingstrategic large for local and too engagement. networks, on her for In book small too are governments local that stating governance local for roles emerging bridges multi-level of governance and Europeanization. discusses(2001) Goss the rather then “local then rather 29 CEU eTD Collection “[The] set of formal and informal One definition of local governance is close the heartto of the debate on rules in LEG: evidences from Bulgaria. with chapters following in the exemplified concepts two these of debating for framework enhance local democracy (Bulkeley and Betsillsections provide next The 2005). two a localof institutions by andsupported emergingthe evidence thatlocal partnershipslegitimacy the and democracy local of terms in advance an is transition a Such institutions. local governanceto in Bulgaria understanding requiresgood a of literature on local government local from transition The prevail. competition and conflicts mistrust, localism, closeness, in reality and institutionalised and ripened not still has above and level local at clearly case studies localbetween the actors andauthorities cooperation other that show followingIn the andobserved analysed processes the chapters inof Bulgarian context the competition and conflictmanagement (Boviard about but co-operation only about is not governance Hence communities). and markets significantin public, the private and voluntary (asmentionedsectors” above -hierarchies, governance mechanisms “other are there networking” butequivalent to remain that The authors point out that “it is important tostress that (local) governance is not bargaining of system a and commitment trust, maintain and build to critical is it process, this inclusive becauseeach bringsstakeholder qualities, important abilities In and resources. collectivelystakeholders solve their problems and meet societal needs. Thisis process ” (emphasis added)(Boviard rules et al , structures and processes by which local . 2002, 12). . 2002, et al ., 2002). ., 30 CEU eTD Collection deliver various levels the services andco-ordinate of activities. Heintroduces threefactors to means best the finding of in terms implications its and regionalization of tendency the have become more institutional the relates complex. (2000) John In this respect reform to of institutionsinvestigates character changed and the of relationsthe between tiersthe that localthe governancethat is prove “intrinsically non-institutional inGovernance character”. and reform ideascross-national networks in economic publicthe cooperation, sector as such factors, non-institutional the of influence the even that forth sets (2000) John (Kousis and Eder2001). of experts/professionals, local environmental andorganized economicgroups interests” agencies,regionalnational state or environmental organizations, political groups parties, environmental as such actors policy environmental involving institutions “participatory in set publics popular and national elite, the between links the summarize They Union. of inEuropean thecontext and actors popular elite national modes: three actors, actor, level andlocal authorities. Kousis on elaborate anddifferent(2001) Eder in types of actors international including government, of levels higher media, business, sector, voluntary Boviard making”. policy environmental local in agents strategic the comprise who networks, local at actors levelpresentJonas (2000) as “individuals, institutions groups, social or and there andwith Gibbsis interests. what powers who out – andgovernance debate which local of actors answers of of bigone the of questions thesisthe and of the Local environmental governance entails identification and explanation of the constellation Local 2.3.3. actors et al . (2002) list(2002) . six of stakeholders groups in the local governance – citizens, 31 CEU eTD Collection There are some key concepts that need to be considered need in to are some that key local There relation concepts democracy:to people anditthe is foundations the in of anddemocratic theory practice. away to return ininterest principlesthe level of the democratic governance at and procedures to closest The emphasisgovernance”. local on democracy in yearsrecent is based renewed on the for renewing local democracy,as “local governmental systems evolve toward some faultsgovernance are there in democracy representative localthe at level and need alsoargues even in(2001) established democracies transitionthe from government to in and worked were educated leaders mindsetthe who of socialism.the as John But local many of actions and mentality the in lives still that approach command-and-control history recent of democratic society the theshort becauseof in Bulgaria and traditional the of The notion local democracy is alsofundamental for local environmental governance Localdemocracy2.3.4. too. in aspects, branded asSouthern other be could that culture political and past totalitarian with State Member EU new a of elites, inlocated central bureaucracies. This perspective parallels with Bulgarianthe case and SpaindevelopedPortugal have regional strong partly not becausestructures, of the Accordinghim to regionalization elites. didallspan not throughout of Europe. Southern regional of role the and democratization identities), regional/national/ethnic of (re-awakening mobilization regional – factors “bottom-up” three regional functions-integrated planning; economic development andnetworks and transport decentralization: size the of “top-down” and efficiency; regional planning legacy and 32 CEU eTD Collection Lowndes governance. new legitimacy byvested and authority the exercisedof state the local through and enhanceactions and vibrancy power the in civil society domain which could lead to Such a type of (2001). governance shallStoker according to recognize the limitsstate to civil society from actors non-governmental the of those with government the of resources by blending the beachieved can decay environmental and poverty renewal, economic of issues “great” the of handling The responsiveness. of lack and rigidity insensitivity, service delivery classical the overcome to faults of organizationalthe systems: policy issues.requires effectiveCapacityact to bureaucracy and professionalof expertise in considering for system jury or referendums multi-choice assemblies, neighbourhood’s The deliberation 2001). (Stoker could involve civic leadership, public meetings, forums, expression dissent, of and limits thedisadvantages of poorly the organized and resourced” shallThe openness action. “the systemintegrated that ensure is has open, low barrier to elementsleast three Atessential local are governance: openness,good deliberationfor and social welfare 2001). (International IDEA, and government good and education, political deliberation, community, and citizenship education andeducation civic skills, socio-economic the status. in words other levelthe localof citizens that participation is resources have the access –money,to and institutional design. mostthe important that suggestfactor in authors The determining variations regions andareas between namely social socio-economicthe status, capital et al . (2006) point at three sets of that shapefactors of local sets three at point participation (2006) . and 33 CEU eTD Collection including their distributive implications. distributive their including foundations distributive of and procedural justice thatinfluence plans and decisions, Paalovaoutlines (2006) recognition, participation and distribution asof powers choicegovernance institutions of is of social amatter justice than rather of efficiency. of environmental problems asconflicts overenvironmental emphasizes resources the that conceptualization The resources”. environmental over conflicts resolve to institutions of change or reaffirmation “establishment, as governance environmental of definition a offers He simultaneously. levels intermediate and international national, local, at operating solutions multi-level on based increasingly is resources environmental global of phenomenally successful in terms of its volume and policy growth impact. The governance been has governance environmental on research institutional that holds (2006) Paavola (Gibbs and Jonas 2000). institutionalit– the to 2002) and(Paavola the 2006;Meadowcroft regime perspective perspectives important two are There municipalities. inBulgarian level local at governance The environmental governance istheoretical importantpremise next the applied to Environmental2.3.5. governance policy. environmental local of domains main the also delimiting dissertation, in this Bulgaria including Europe, across governance environmental local of examination for a ground closer the local anddemocracy discourses prepare The theoretical on actors 34 CEU eTD Collection emphasis understanding on newforms the of local economic and environmental particular a placing discourses environmental local and governance local of forms an of rescalinginterpretation They attempt approach. of environmental policy, of new Gibbs focus and on (2000) environmental Jonas governance through utilitythe of regime environment. the managing for protocols and structures of combination and time require learning social and adjustment institutional that notes (2002) allsystemat which governance,of levels actors find difficultnavigate”. Meadowcroft to national regulation and initiatives, have an multi-tieredelaborate, rather generated but replaced not have regimes environmental global and “regional the him to According ‘thirdgeneration’ challengesrelation to in suchas climate change biodiversity or loss”. particularly slow), too or small (too inadequate is dilemmas environmental to response and spatial scales environmental with associated problems.“the political Hearguesthat temporal cross-cutting and variable the emphasize to analysts for common relatively is it studies(2002) someMeadowcroft implications for environmental governance arguing that action. of level “constitutional” the from follow to supposed Finally,decisions regardingof authority collective the and they the procedures actors are These decisions catch. or arebased acceptable on“institutional” gear constitutes rules. “collectivethe At choice” make level, collective actors authorized choices such as what make choices within of “operational” theconstraints rules which define their choice sets. governed by corresponding rules “operationalthe At (Ostrom 1991). level”, individuals Regarding governance institutions Paavola (2006)identifies functionalthree tiers 35 CEU eTD Collection processes athigherprocesses levels because theconstitutional subordination and top-down the to linked isdirectly level local at rules of implementation and establishment The Multi-level governance 2.3.6. nationalthe in and legalstate traditions” (Knill and Lenschow130). 2001, embeddedness their “on depends importance relative their and structures institutional embeddedin locallevel and upper institutions. Theenvironmental policies are affected by institutional of rules for exploration the perspective established as more productive and thesisIn the LEGentails examinationlocal at level, of actors hence itwould lend development” (Gibbs and Jonas 2000, 300). helpselucidate competing to ideologies and discourses associated with economic environment the on “focus the that explains reason A third “stakeholders”. local other and organizations, community groups, environmental organizations, business governments, local including organizations, local of range wide a involve days these initiatives environmental local environment, the for organization delivery principal the is government and regulation localof state-imposed than theexpectation local that Rather organizations. inclusive politically and socially more become itself has making policy “environmental that is reason A second locally. development economic with conflict in than rather compatible as viewed now are policies environmental contexts some in that allow transformation local politics. of Firstrescalingis processes reason the that and local governance local environmental policy the understanding broaden local of to governance features in governance (Gibbs They 300). andJonas 2000, elaborate several forreasons focusing on 36 CEU eTD Collection hierarchical which approach focuses theways on in which competences and authority are types of multi-level two suggest and Marks (2001) Hooghe governance: Type I,a of discussions core the (Eckelberg 2004). andJoas partnershipsand hand, one anddeliberative formsremain of democracy, other, the on at policy-makingLikewise, tensionsprocesses. the between democracy,representative on role of the national that governments,perspective, even ifis stilleroded, most central to level local from especially governance, multi-level of studies empirical on based political influence, within andin international thenation-state issettings. It maintained more including in power, gaining are governments local but possibilities control of of democracy and still participation of differentThe states haveactors. aconsiderable level regional localand alsogovernment,public-privateon but interaction issuesandbroader on national, of responsibilities and relationships horizontal or vertical on be can emphasis several ways and remains fluid arather theoretical basis for empirical research”. The 411) “multi-level(2004, andJaos Eckerberg governance as a conceptis interpreted in implications study the of LEG in for Bulgaria asan According to EU Member State. theoretical important its has governance” “multi-level on discourse theoretical The municipalities. neighbour and municipalities leading associations, regional and national municipal institutionaland abound hand,other aboveat field. local actors other levelOn the – environmental in including legislation, EU transposes turn in which legislation national prevailingdelegation are and municipalities with arevested a rangeof bycompetences the 37 CEU eTD Collection provide as an example of Type II the international regimes and more specifically the specifically more and regimes international the II Type of example an as provide limitednumber of governments just operating at a few levels”The authors (2003,236). intellectual foundations of federalism, “which is concernedwith sharing power among clarify (2003) distinctivethe features of Type Iasgeneral-purpose jurisdictions with its In their further contributionSource: Adopted by Hooghe and Marks (2001). to theof multi-level Table 2Types governance. debate on multi-level governance Hooghe and Marks governing particular issues (see Table 2). in involved are authority of spheres horizontal interconnected and overlapping multiple differentbetween shared levels government; of and Type apolycentric II, model in which Number of levels of Number According tothe Compatibility of jurisdictions jurisdictions jurisdictions tasks ofthe Number of Durability Type mutually exclusive mutually jurisdictions organized ina organized jurisdictions limited jurisdictions are intendedtobe are jurisdictions multi-task number of jurisdictions number number of levels of number particular level particular permanent TYPE I jurisdictions jurisdictions at any at jurisdictions limited unlimited overlapping jurisdictions are intendedtobe are jurisdictions Task-specific no limit jurisdictional levels jurisdictional number of jurisdictions number TYPE II to the number of number the to flexible jurisdictions at all at jurisdictions levels jurisdictions 38 CEU eTD Collection fact that it is at level of urbanby the space that citizens“legitimized is live policies and work”. environmentally-friendly of core the at cities the of role the that holding environment of field the in impacts also underlines specifically He structures. publicacross policy levels and resultin changing agendasnew through administrative andinstitutional/organizational impacts which and partnershipsencourage cooperation 138-139) outlines(2005, some EUpolicy impactslocal at level – substantial, procedural fields differentbetween and for action cooperation levels of governance. Carmichael impactsdirect and onlocalare opportunities there create governance that context EU begovernance especially features seems to obvious in environmental policy In the sector.” polycentric 407)conclude andJaos(2004, governance.” that“multi-level Eckerberg bears directlygovernment and Europe in Western the Unitedon multi-level, States andMarks(2003,235)observe that“the Hooghe study of 2000). localand Peters including ones, local level at where newforms of local governance aremanifested (Pierre domestic the and institutions EU the between links the and Union European the within currency among scholars anddecision-makers”. The studiesconcept decision-makingcommon is governance multitiered) (or multi-level label the where studies Union European claim andMarks (2003,234) Hooghe control, “onesuchcentral that state island is of unravelling the to response in science political of theorizing of islands discussing While often overlap”239). (2003, functions “which and regional” to global from “varies scale which treaties environmental 39 CEU eTD Collection local politics. He puts forward the Europeanization of Europeanization local the of sub-national forward the politics. puts He governance. His of dimensions international the dominating factor influential second a as Union European make any not does difference.In this relation John discusses(2000) effectthe of the it or SNAs the weakened has SNA’s; strengthened has EU the views: of points different Fleurkeand Willemse study effectsthese 70) (2007, by stating arethree thatthere authorities (SNA),including local governments (Fleurke and Willemse 2007,John 2000). isof literature Europeanization effects focusedthe sub-national on Part the on of EU down modelconducting for empirical research domesticon effects remains reviewingconcludesafter “the mostinfluential literatureEuropeanization that the on and member states as two-way (Risse and member astwo-way states EU between relationship the explain to consensus isa there Although sub-national). and emphasize interactions among the several levels of governance (supranational, national, of distinct structures of governance”, that is of political, legal and social institutions and of and policy specializing networks in European creation of the authoritative institutions social and legal political, of is that governance”, of structures distinct of the words of Risse of words the Europeanization at national at Europeanization level (Risse asinstitution-Europeanization building level effects European the the to at of inThe research recentyearsBachethe 2008). has shifted2005, from attention the Sedelmeier and (Schimmelfennig States Member the and EU between relationships the term Europeanization hasThe becomein “grand” concept academicexplain research to 2.3.7. Europeanization ”(emphasis added). et al . (2001) as”the emergence (2001) and. development level European the at et al et al . 2001). Now Europeanization Now . 2001). is perceived in . 2001 and. Bache 2008),Bache (2008,11) rules essentially top- . The authors The . 40 CEU eTD Collection Europeanization is one of core aspects of of localisEuropeanization aspects of one governancecore multi-levelJohn 885). maintainsJohn governance(2000, according to further that EU-funded askey for and areregarded Europeanization programs tests projects and of implementation and formulation the over governments sub-national and central between partnerships informal and formal The funds). EU by directly fuelled instances many (in longalsoand lasting effects and arecritical for newinitiatives and awarenessatlocal level immediate their have byEU indirectly or directly imposed rules that say to it suffice here but below in detail discussed is governance and policy-making local on EU of impacts The more active inand got international and partnerships. networks horizons their broaden have governments local subsidies by EU stimulated partly where encompass changed the central balancebetween and sub-nationalpower of governments provides them with of new sources funding for local Theindirectprograms. when effects or activities government local the upon impact that regulations and rules implies indirectand directthe effects at of localpointEU on governments: in case the when EU operational andprograms, implementation and monitoring.4) and (2005, Denters Rose partnerships,as follows: European of regional stages development plans, formal contracts, politicalof nationalorganization European, –the and local. John sums(2000) up the is Europeanization perspective on “multi-level”Another of governance – with levelsthree Europeanized (advising implementation EUon fully issues).and networking, oriented, financially directives), and regulations to response as (activities minimal – activities of sets four comprises Europeanization” of “ladder . This thesis explores the This thesisexplores 41 CEU eTD Collection follows: Bulgarian to circumstances,Adapted priorities and terminology, it could be presented as Development. Regional Programm Operational and Environment Program Operational under financed projects for eligible are municipalities all Bulgaria in since too, thesis, the institutions. and Funds Structural EU with involvement significant have which cities in Europeanization of varieties the considers (2005) Marshall by EU-financed programs: Marshallurban level at For Europeanization modes (2005) fuelledconsists of two mostly http://www.moew.government.bg/ns/recent_news_e.php?action=fullnews&showcomments=1&id=158). legislation, with the 8 framework acts in the sector and approximately 80 more 90major than regulatory documents of the European Union have beenintroduced inBulgarian environmental 7 field environmental in which has changed Bulgarian the local polity landscape introducing new policies and rules opening external local of influences agenda to mostly externalized by Europeanization Accordingof of to astatement minister Environmentthe Bulgarian 10years than andWater madein2006“For less 2. 1. - policiesEuropean programs.” or pan- in initiatives local of incorporation the in resulting arena, supranational “Upload Europeanization” programs. EU of implementation participantswithin local system governance,of arising from negotiation the and “Download Europeanization” Europeanization of of Europeanization local government( 7 . : – The transfer of innovative urban practices to the to practices urban innovative of transfer The : Changes: in policies, preferences practices, and download regulations.” (MoEW web site - His classification is applicable for applicable is classification His ); 42 CEU eTD Collection Fernandez the larger world. Chhotray and Stoker (2009, 141) remind larger the (2009, Chhotray governance world. and usthat “is Stoker more a from emanating forces and decisions rules, to vulnerable also are but internally, symbols municipality),as conceptualizedcould rules, by generate a and customs (1978), as Moore (such fields social Semi-autonomous governance? explain to important are rules Why Introduction2.4.1. 2.4. Analytical framework and participants last (Bachethe accounting 2003), category for unique political networks. preferences practices, policies, examining beyond and rules of light the in municipalities local the down levelelucidate effects the to of Europeanization on Bulgarian a new EU entrant. For thatEven lessand Bulgaria hascontext European the literature discussed as South-Eastern the reason the thesis exploresenvironmental countries”. governanceEuropean hashardly Southern to paid attention all governance levels but pinning - - - and “crossload”). (upload networks transnational via cities other to thus and level, supranational engenders dissemination that Europeanization of local the to practices associations for landfills) ( landfills) for associations Europeanization oflocal partnerships and (like networks municipal ( (landfills,infrastructural projects management) water andgovernance involved actors in of processes the not-statutory of Europeanization et al download . (2010, 558) claim558) (2010, . “the that literature onthe Europeanization of ); download ); 43 CEU eTD Collection where local where local rules emerge,in which local areinvolved, actors rule-making what processes rules The of local environmental governance areas of environmental showthe governance capacities and of localthe features actors. roles, the about hand, other the on and policies EU of application and implementation investigation.Ruleslearn perspective provide practical a to agood about lot local at aremirroredlevel andprocess pressure is atheme which needs serious this How directives. in EU defined usually regulations these with comply to Bulgaria EU environmental policy” (Jordan Jordan mostthe EUpolicy regulated of one fields (Schout analyzeWhy to LEG? the rules important are In firstplace because environmental field is processes.” (120). relationships within legal the laws, between as understood discipline, and wider social empirical by research conducted anthropologists and sociologists questioned the that governance from socio-legal study perspective which has evolvedon of tradition the “out of reflect (2009) Stoker and Chhotray municipality. a of field administrative and social semi-autonomous in the emerge that rules informal subtle, least not and governments by local adopted rules strategic and legal local legislation, national by imposed spheres of governing the environment comprehensionacquirea better could of governmental levels and non-governmental since there is array description of social ofreality anthan objectivebe By pursued”. studying to rules the rules one out there – legal rules et al. 2003, Barnes and 2003, “Regulation Barnes 1999). remains the main instrument of et al. 2003, 214) and2003, 214) is there increasing pressure on et al. 2010,Knill and Lenschow 2003, 44 CEU eTD Collection applied in of enactment/reproduction the social practices”. Hefurther alsoprovides Giddens rulesregards (1984) of social life “as techniquesgeneralizable or procedures world) arerequired, prohibited permitted” or of the states enforced (or what actions prescriptions about involvedto referthose that among understandings shared are “they that maintains she Further sanctions. imposing enforced in particular situations by responsibleagents for monitoringand for conduct 23) defines(2007, rules as prescriptions may) (must,must or and not, understood Rules are“specific prescriptions proscriptions for or action” Ostrom (Krasner 2). 1983, sinceaction”, list given vast the of possible effects of rules itis unwisebe more to specific. Knight67) provides(1992, ageneral definition of rules as “guides for future courses of technologies which around political activity (March isand constructed” Olsen 1989). organizational forms and strategies, roles, conventions, procedures, “routines, with competences them partially entirelyor (March obsolete” rules.“Environmental newturbulence problems produces and makes old rules and Environmental changes and problems resultin of often global, adoption national and local Main conceptsaboutrules2.4.2. 2009,141). and Stoker pluralamongstin normative society thesocialgovern repertoires (Chhotray that one conduct.” “only is form strict in its law local or state the that so governance for tools as rules of definition promising more a conceptualize and rules formal beyond look to instrumental allandwhat are this tellsLEG dynamics. usabout This analytical perspective could be (Ostrom 2007, 36). (Ostrom et al . 2000). Rules. 2000). mean 45 CEU eTD Collection police and courts”. and shunning,may or be highly formalized and assignedspecialized to such actors, as the shaming as such folkways involving mechanisms, informal diffuse through operate may punishments-influence to inor attempt future behaviour.He concludes that“these processes –rewards sanctions manipulate and them to conformity others’ inspect rules, establish andsanctioning activities involveregulatory processes conceptualizes that capacity to monitoring rule-setting, related the and institutions the of pillar regulative the analyzing affectIn his1986). (Ostrom institutions workon and organizations(2001) while Scott they are allowedandoutcomes what to take, actions they what to are permitted contract); leave positionsor these (election, enter appointment, random selection, patronage, consultee, partnership member); voter, representative, they determine participants how community chair, committee leader, council example, (for “positions” create Rules March image policies orderliness, of appropriate authority structure, and practices according to Written/formal rules areimpersonal, explicitand public, canbe anticipated andconvey formallythe to codified rules aslaws which arealso most strongly the sanctioned. andconduct written constitutions ontheopportunities and constraints for participation or of codes official as influence same the with rules informal to either relate that rules typology rules.of From his typology of rules I would apply informal/formalthe types of task (March task informal rules have effectiveness limited sizethe and of complexity group to the of the et al. et al. (2000, 21). In contrast the habits, the 21). In contrast (2000, customs and practices comprisethat 2000). 46 CEU eTD Collection expertise. more effective a better, producing of rule by allowing gathering many opinions and discretion of the officials.the limit In the they process of rule-drafting,Fifth, Baldwin decisions. of finds legitimacy another advantage, perceived the to contribute rules next, in criteriaappropriate deciding aparticular issue and in outlining relevantpolicies. As people time; andorganizationsalsoacross butacross thirdly treatment – they set down placedin secondly, context; broader they consistency,encourage fairness and equality of advantages of rule-use.Rules accumulate experience and wisdom, each that so decision is prospective is Baldwin’s debate ontherationales of using rules. Heputsforward six Particularly analysisthe for important of local environmental governance from rules’ governmental couldaims promote become basis or for negotiation. bedriven followed to are by by procedures that officialsthe and public. the rules Other organize governmental enable,organize, to activitiesor recommendaction, of acourse to rules enabling or commendatory be could they matters, substantive on officials instruct informal alsorules that could be given legal effect.According Baldwin to (1995) rules prescription sanctionand or of effect, formtype of drafting.” site Onarethe opposite the 1995, (Baldwin 9). role” Furthergovernmental or effect legal its of indication an heas help limited maintains of “…only is that rules of form legal the thatdiscusses he First rules. rulesof types of inventory and “varyuse their behind rationale enormouslythe dimensions, their rules, with governing of accordingcharacteristics main to legal form Legal alsoprovidetheorists definitions and of rules. Baldwin provides(1995) an overview of 47 CEU eTD Collection powers - in order to identify to in - order powers rulesthe established, and negotiated changed atlocal level. rules originatingordinances,other decisions, or from strategies local decision-making research to localof departure apoint constitutes formal regulations – municipal Laws create rules (March Laws create Formal2.4.3. rules local level where rules appearandareimplemented. at arenas possible the identifies Bulgaria in LEG of rules of analysis The 1991). (Ostrom arenasandbetween rules “rarely involve asinglea single to arena related set of rules” Rules1991). level” (Ostrom couldarenas be related of to decision-making. The relationships constitutional the at occur decision constitutional of modification and adjudication, adjudication of policy decisionsat collective-choice occur level. Formulation, governance, level. operational the at of processes The policy-making, occur management, and provision, “Thebeof appropriation, processes used. monitoring, rules andenforcement to specific what and eligible is who in determining results and activities operational affect rules “Constitutional-choice” managed. be must resources the how policies, making in withheld.exchanged “Collective-choice” or rules affectchoicesoperational and areused be must information the how and others of actions of monitoring units, resource constitutional-choicerules. “Operational” rules affectdecisions day-to-day the concerning three elaborates types of (1991) rules: Ostrom 2006). operational, collective-choice and politicians,public of managers,community leaders and citizensbehaviour themselves the (Lowndes shaping through locality, a in participation influences that institutions of “rules-in-use” sconcept Ostrom’ specific refers to combination of formal and informal et al. 2000) and this obvious and constant development constant and obvious this and 2000) et al. 48 CEU eTD Collection possible which lensall understand to through as rules” (March serve to rules unwritten with similarities enough “share rules written Theoretically, their changescould be have collected, that records analysed and usedasdata. information timethe of and about changes extent is available when rulesthe arewritten; of formalresearch rules is assisted by factthey the that leave traces; more accurate be laws to passed by regional, local and special 36). The governments.”2007, (Ostrom legislationthe “In addition to and regulations of a formal central apt government, are there strategy which leads to identifying “the aspects of the physical, cultural and institutional and cultural physical, the of aspects “the identifying to leads which strategy we should 55) suggeststhat (1991, study institutions in field settings. Sheoutlines a basic institutionsfor public and (e.g. actors participation in Ostrom SEA procedures). EIA or positions create rules and ordinances) municipal passing councils municipal the (e.g. rules formal create institutions formal – ways many in interrelated are institutions and Rules Emergence 2.4.4. ofrules formal rule and canbe of an efficiency increasing distributive or nature. informal argues that Heritier46) (2007, rules can emerge in dailythe application of a are later followed that by changes in formal institutional rules” (Dimitrova 2010,139). informal rules place takes “new institutions arise asaresultof changes in informal rules enforcement. of outside When creation theprocess of nor subjectto down neither written rulesa third andresolution, asrules whiledown subject written party to informal rules are partly because nature, of their symbolic standing”. formal Dimitrova138) treats (2010, changing formal of them, partly rules about andpeople care because of their coercive claim of primaryone the that of concerns modern decision-makers is “the making and et al. 2000). The authors alsoThe authors 2000). 49 CEU eTD Collection binding legislation implementtranspose, which to arerequired theMember and States of pieces (561 communitaire acquis environmental EU of body main the transposed already has legislation Bulgarian hand, other the On N03). (Interview manner formal a in it do will or strategies environmental producing of pains the take not would governments planning. funds behind attractive the Without environmental EU the policies local anddrive in interests their actors, many andother areas like capacity building and strategic rules alreadyThe EU have gained primary significance agendathe on of local governments 294)). specified cultures andconventions ("howthings are here” around done (Lowndes 2005, circulate in thewidersociety that and economy (media,business, and education), by locally templates” “institutional by directives), EU legislation, (national government of tiers higher from “emanate that rules by shaped are institutions And itself”. government local alongside and below above, exist that frameworks wider institutional within “embedded rules and institutions of local her rules are “nested” According or governance. to alsoexplains294) (2005, Lowndes – orders. phenomenonthe of interdependence between mayors the strategies, and ordinances municipal – councils municipal the by-laws, national – Ministers of Council the laws, national – Parliament National the norms: written of in form rules pass institutions Formal institutions. comprise rules and rules create Institutions and payoffs assignedparticular combinations to of actions and outcomes. availableactions and for outcomes, look to and information, then exercised the control likelyare that settingaffect determinationthe to of bewho is involved to in a situation” 50 CEU eTD Collection Environmental compliance enforcement.and p.264, (http://www.inece.org/conference/7/vol1/index.html). COMMUNAUTAIRE NEWMEMBERSTATES INTHE 8 – electedpublic representatives, actors officials, community political leaders, activistsof group pressure and behaviour the shape Institutions rules-in-form. to opposed as in-use, rules- of sense broader the in rules institutional from also but innovations, institutional and structures administrative formal the from derived be can LEG of design institutional The publicthe (Wilson and Svihlova to 2000,260). information of disseminators as and processes consultation some in community the of of pollution, aslocalsome sources and some assets employers, local of asrepresentatives reflectcompetences different functions local of asowners as authorities: directregulators, Their 257). 2000, Svihlova and (Wilson field environmental the in municipalities andcompetences and actual and the formal the tactics achievementsstructures both of Any review local of actions andcapacity authority for actionsexamine needstherefore to 138). “when formal and informal rules align and areusedbytogether (Dimitrovaactors” 2010, newrules-in-use.the The real institutionalization new of the formal rules place takes whereby a newformal rule isby supported supplementary informal process rulesa and is become both institutionalization The instutionalised. be should rules phenomenon this remain empty shells new could the in Member for aftermath States the of they enlargement.avoid To that rules European new about that claims (2010) Dimitrova rules. these from enforce Kremlis G. andDusic J. 8 ) and local governments should cope with various roles and responsibilities arising responsibilities and roles various with cope should governments local and ) THE CHALLENGETHE IMPLEMENTATIONOF THE OF ENVIRONMENTALTHE ACQUIS . Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Conference International Seventh ofthe Proceedings . 51 CEU eTD Collection environmental regimes and initiatives. and regimes environmental international with interdependence and interaction level of international other areinformativeapproaches inof multi-level thewidercontext governance reaching to out new andputting departments items onthemunicipal council agenda. Thesetwo anda third –“the one organizational connected withadaptation” firstlike two setting-up influence to attempts bottom-up interestspromote through EUlegislation – a second one and policy EU influence to attempts” “proactive the type; one comprises legislation EU of implementation like funds EU or policy EU of “absorption” The municipalities. describesDe Rooij 452) who (2002, three dimensions of impacts of EU on the of structuring rules couldto be approach Another lentgovernmentsby actors. and other local of in roles changing partnerships, local leading and managing – constitutive be also could which institutions local of roles the changing to relates third the and participation public and dissemination information networking, of rules encompasses type second The level. local at enforced and specified implemented, be should which level national rulesthe mostly type to relates in form of legalfirst emanatingnorms andThe procedures from EU and institutional/organizational. and procedural substantial, - level local at policy Carmichael acategorization of rules impacts proposes the related138) to of (2005, EU 2.4.5. Types of rules in the thesis framework. governance multi-level within levels institutional all The dissertation approaches the research of rules in LEG established at or influenced rulesfocusless on underpinning to the policy fromagendaor at local levelmore and (Lowndes possible less or more action of courses certain making by – citizens individual et al. 2006). 52 CEU eTD Collection lawfulness by rules whereas strategic are developed regional the followinggovernor for monitored and administration) municipal the with cooperation its for and commissions organization for and of municipal work the statutes ordinances (e.g. council, of its municipal the and administration local and self-governance local on law the by prescribed is procedure the rules legal of case the In administration. municipal by implemented typesBoth of rules follow aformal drafting directed by procedure mayorthe and (De Rooij adaptation 2002). as channelsinfluence EUfundsabsorb or to organizational EUpoliciesa better trigger or makinginThey carried idealcould out the act actors. interested with other case together policy- environmental the of result are and municipality the of behalf on administration municipal for actions for guides are They municipality. the of vision the represent rulesstrategic in form plansof programs, and strategies are policy-oriented rules that enforceable.Legal rules could besubstantial,and institutional.procedural The formal ordinancescould be that subjecta third-party ruling) to resolution court (e.g. and thus municipal of form in rules binding legally are rules legal formal The rules. informal 3) and strategic formal 2) legal, formal 1) distinction: simple a in grounded rules of analysis the employs thesis The levels. national and municipal at interviews and visits study case the this claim to accordance thesisthe reflects local and observed practices analysed during in Bulgaria.is claimed It governance In that is 6). apractice 2009, (Chhotray and Stoker final composition has emerged findings from the case of the studies and field the research The typology rulesof applied in dissertationthe relates above approaches,but theirto 53 CEU eTD Collection is applied: rule environmental local of definition working following the thesis the of purposes the For 6-7). involved in their preparation, adoption and application. and adoption preparation, their in involved be to actors other require could but minimum a as authorities local of activities and Formal rules likestrategic powers. environmental plans or affectstrategies decisionsthe nuisance.sanctions for Legal rules possess prescriptive, preventive and sanctioning and behaviour appropriate defining by - activities and decisions their - municipality in the organizations and people all of lives the affect could ordinance municipal of rules (e.g. in the field of waste management)and localactors and how it is sanctioned by local decisions andactivitiesmunicipalauthorities of the theenvironmental affects authorities.level and The (prescription isresult action)that of governance orproscription for processes at local be andcoulddown) (written publicly not enforced sanctioned or (Christiansen Like informal267). the 2007, (Bouwen governance in general they are not codified decisionsThe informal of local actors. and routines rules procedural customs, rules are implementation and discretion the at totally are and binding not are rules informal The management by arecontrolled programs RIEW. the environmental rules likestrategic environmental programs and waste protection The municipality. the of citizens the representing body elected an council, municipal internal administrative rulesof these endorsement The is performed procedures. by the the local local the environmental rule is . Inthis sense a local ordinance is rule about what is allowed or prohibited a guide for furthercoursesa guidefor action of et al. 2003, 54 CEU eTD Collection 55 CEU eTD Collection rules. environmentalgovernance, multi-level Europeanization, governance, governance and of rules and rule-making have been accumulated existingthe andrelated to ones of local useful”Following 1967,46). (GlazerandStrauss my research agenda emerging concepts have emergedhypotheses with from that data somethe existingare clearly that ones and concepts mostly combine to will tend then, theory, grounded “A discovered, allow accumulated the the dictate evidence“emerging” to theoretical agenda” (Dey 1999). case sitesselected wherethe problemand the could be researcheris studied, the then to (Glazer 1967). Having andStrauss identified theproblem in topic or very general terms “grounded asaguiding theory” manyfor theory rules be to “discovered from data” is based only broadly severalon discourses and needsfurther conceptualization I apply the deductive andinductive models inquiry. of Since the theoretical framework of research the mysuch test typeshowed that of methodology. governanceIt research to would employ local in Estonian rules informal and regulations legal environmental on 2008 in Estonia how things work inparticularcontext qualitative researchhas “an unrivalled compellingconstitute capacity to arguments about questions research of the thesisthe to isThe approach based on qualitative methods. The III. Methodology ” (Mason 2002, 1). Ihave 2002, a ” (Mason conducted pilotstudy in 56 CEU eTD Collection Urban municipality.inLater and late interviews 2010other 2009 and directobservations firstinterviews in August2009 during wereconducted the first casestudy in Dobrich and suggestions for follow-up with interviews with knowledgeableother respondents. recommendations getting by effect” “snowball also employed interviews The studies. case interviews These importancetheirfor LEG. weremain of evidences source collected from local thesisthe about with data and upperlevels’ visions and understandings of rules and provided has business and media NGOs, local and national and associations municipal of authorities, environmental regional and national of representatives councillors, municipal The semi-structured,open-ended authorities (Ramboll 2007; COWI 2007and COWI 2008;EPTISA 2009). from technical assistanceoutputs for strengthening projects of Bulgarian national and local are documents These municipalities. Bulgarian in level local at legislation environmental Additional wasfound anddata in studies onimplementation other reports of makingactors rules, the whereandhowthey theirare developed andwhat main types are. for analysisdata of new sources The archival have the occurred. research has detected thehomepages. of interviews, From consultation the casestudies andobservation direct respective officialthe also were checked,although documents commonthe case was Within and contracts. casestudies regulations,the projects hardcopies of other strategies, homepagesof municipalities environmental and - rulesthere the presented ordinances and Internet the from information on based is It level. national on and municipalities case the in The archival research 3.1. Methods for data collection has been used to exploreused to existing the documents containing rules interviews with mayors, environmental experts, environmental mayors, with The 57 CEU eTD Collection add new dimensions for understanding either the context or the phenomenon being phenomenon the or context the either understanding for dimensions new add unit anorganizational “observations…of states 93) (2003, As Yin administrations. these of working place.This experience practices provided meand internal with access to routines municipalof the room lawyers,whereas in LukovitandI hadmy Teteven separate caseof the observation. In Dobrich directurban municipality my research desk wasin the (Yinnature since 2003) Ihave askedthe approval undertake mayorsof the three the to formal of mostly were My observations Teteven. and inLukovit both week a about and officials” (Wild RiveralmostI spentDobrichweeks 723). at 2006, two urban municipality government local with directly issues environmental local discussing and observing by visiting, only be gained can work environmental government local of understanding The interviews andanalysis document werecombined with more years and recalling their personal story. hadbased happenedeven oninterviewsare few yearsago with people going back ten and what about accounts some sense this In municipality. the of history institutional and legal municipalities some have of but homepagesthem the archiveare new record without to study case The municipalities. Bulgarian in exercise simple so not be to proved some respondents I had a secondandtranscribedand forrestextensive With the weretaken. recorded them notes of were interview over a period of time.interviews(44 56 casestudiesconducted the for and 12at national level) interviews. Most Access to information nationalthe perspective rules on and rule-makingadd in processes to LEG. All I together interviewed were consultancies environmental and associations national ministries, held.case studies were During same other the periods representatives two of the at direct observation . “An . 58 CEU eTD Collection planning, management focus (Wild protection or River 2006,719). ecological,social and economic values; demonstrates different depending patterns onits bybalancing endures creative; and is novel it requirements: statutory its beyond extends in Australianpatterns local governmentitenvironmental that found out author The work. andprocesses, neighbourhood change. example, For casestudy has revealed important real-lifecharacteristics of among events” which could be organizational and managerial case study “the method allows retain holisticthe investigators to and meaningful multiple of information sources rich in (Creswellcontext” 1998). Yin (2003) holds that involving collection data in-depth “detailed, with research the inform to potential the clearlyphenomenon are not andcontext the evident” (YinThe case 13). study 2003, has phenomenon within its real-lifeespecially context, when boundariesthe between the delineates local the of environmental context investigategovernance “to acontemporary study case the analysis of unit is municipality the Since municipalities. the from rules and governance environmental local on information collect and ground the on processes Case study 3.2. Casestudy research council. instage August 2009and in November 2009itwas already by adopted municipalthe drafting a in was which municipality urban inDobrich program protection environmental anew of adoption of processes follow to able was I investigation of line this In studied”. has been selected decisive asthe explore methodologicalthe to approach 59 CEU eTD Collection also the discussionalsothe on Dobrich inVII urban Chapter municipality). case the However, leading national the association at representatives of municipalities andEU level, at see capacity and weight of thecontrastingpredictable results for (Yin reasons 47) –bigger 2003, budget and staff,municipality higher some also predicted were there sample the in atmunicipality big the one of inclusion nationalthe level (history big cityof Dobrich), included thus leading strongto literal to replications.related On the exceptions other hand,mayors some exactly (with because cases of all from results – similar predicting on bear from expected beginningthe research the design that of multiple-case study was should mostlyIt inhabitants. 000 100 about with is urban Dobrich only and municipalities rural and of them Asresulttwo a (Lukovit, Teteven) arebetween 20 000and 30000 inhabitants urban characteristics.of of 264 municipalitiestotal rural or 231out are rural in Bulgaria. medium My represent research cases wereselected to and large municipalitieshave and to institutional structures. and municipal level, internalthe ward interactions andtaking their into larger account sizeat and arising issues governance of exploration rules, of investigation of line main the to in addition require would which wards/quarters) city in the also governments local (with excluded from theoretical the sampling concerning population and institutional set-up communicationThe biggest and case studies. municipalities Sofia, Plovdiv and Varnaare municipalities (under10000inhabitants) when providing personal from data reports, thesisinstitutional makes references alsoto The and of governancesmaller set-up medium-sized/large. urban/rural, - criteria two to according Bulgaria in municipalities have I chosen casestudies (Dobrichrepresent three urban,and Lukovitthat Teteven) 60 CEU eTD Collection develop local environmental rules.Still them between isand gap the the others enormous less people have 10000 than the same competences and experience similarwith pressuresto in municipalities and municipalities largest in the authorities municipal the However, there. works beach).The big municipalities of population havethe most the lives biggerbudgets, and nationalagainst(Strandzha habitatsski construction or Iraklisea coast resorts park, inprocedure Lukovit golfthe about in course in Chapter or VI) campaigns – for saving intervenehave chance in to formal like procedures discussion(see the EIA on EIA usually by exerted nationalis “imported”or cases whenever andNGOs in hot spots they hot expertise NGO opposition. society civil without development economic for pressures formalusuallybut powers with capacitynoexercise to them and also exposedto are inare jurisdiction the resources of smaller municipalities which withare vested samethe natural the of most Conversely, experts. environmental with units environmental large have municipalities big The process. decision-making the on influence and voice strong media only accumulated.Therethe environmenttake waste the andto NGOsociety has They of urban are type and areamong biggest of sources pollution and pressureon havehuman and financial capacity in times higher than anymunicipalities municipalityother inbiggest Bulgaria. the and Sofia arguments. following the has sampling theoretical The of LEG. areas in these municipalities all of competences formal equal the of because municipalities study findingslegal about and strategic rules and rule-making apply all to Bulgarian 61 CEU eTD Collection regional level and verified,also were detected notably inat fieldthe management of waste created rules this doing By priorities. rule-making and arrangements administrative differences the theirfeatures same of the rulesout andpoint time and at specifics to in havedevelopeda comparativeI mode of presentinghighlight cases the to common overlap Lukovit and Teteven of municipalities neighbouring the of activities environmental issues incrosscutting case municipalitiesemergedhigher also that at levels. Since some This allowed approach perspectivemulti-level arigorous at governance detecting level. regional at patterns and similarities out find to and municipalities neighbouring at beyond look to possible it made municipalities, 4 practically in insights Getting Pleven. centre regional administrative with other each cases-Lukovitand Teteven – aremedium-sizedThe nexttwo municipalities, 50km. from municipality them compare and when enlarge regional case, needed,to the to perspective. Sinceis it have urban type of I casewith expanded the some interviews at Dobrich rural region. Dobrich of centre administrative and municipality large relatively is municipality urban Dobrich level. national at findings the with compared be to chapters study discoveries enriching overall the They map highlightedLEG. are of and framed in case unique with also but findings common with thesis the provided municipalities case All pressure of Europeanization. socially and institutionally these of discrepanciesface thetop on weak andneedthe to economically, are municipalities the of Most governance. environmental and rule-making and rules of activities, and initiatives local of scope capabilities, social and economic in 62 CEU eTD Collection with subunits of case study analysis like municipal administration, municipal council, civil council, municipal administration, municipal like analysis study case of subunits with action, of spheres economic and legal administrative, natural, human, of universe complex isa A municipality in Bulgaria. governance environmental local of pattern the into added The emergingenvironmental themes about governance wereidentified for every case and process? the rules Is itonlythe Why aretheserules made? Europeanization of that explainsthe - making process? - How is decided(the“how”environmental issues governancequestion)on in the rule- “who” governancequestion? NGOs orbusinesses thatcontributetopluralistic or collective-choice processes – the governance? Isitonlythe municipal administration or there is civil society and strong Who aretheleadingactorsthat - determine the processes of rule-making and decided aboutthem-the“what” governance question? - The underlying questions for case the study are: municipalities. with theRiver and (RIEW), Water with Basinregional Directorates associations of and Environment for Inspectorate Regional governor, regional the with municipalities checking andgrounding arguments better and cooperation about communication of the double- allows region administrative one in municipalities case two Presenting studies. case in all in place was associations landfill municipal regional of establishment the where What are thebasicenvironmental conditionsandproblems what should be done, 63 CEU eTD Collection possibility of direct replication” and the “analytical conclusions independently arising from arising independently conclusions “analytical the and replication” direct of possibility Accordingcompetences.(Yin 53) “even to 2003, case studieswith youtwo have the in As shown were conducted. withleading representatives of national NGOs andexperts from consultancy companies 10 9 Association of Municipalities national level with key atMinistrypersons of EnvironmentNational and Water, Simultaneously fieldthe throughout research period August July 2009- 2010 interviews 2010. at in July out carried were municipalities three all to trips field Second interviews. myupdate anddata comparewith it the preliminary findings from firstthe rounds of Aprilvisited I 2010 again Dobrich key andinformants and contacted cases to two other at the March In municipality. the at priorities and agenda-setting the mark that initiatives have homepagesthe of case municipalitiesI monitored 2010 main detect to events and December until year a than more For –Teteven. municipality case third the visited I 2009 firstproceeded with I Dobrich and Lukovitcases in September 2009andin December individuals civil with strong engagementwere interviewed. and businesses media, local of representatives addition In councillors. municipal and thefieldof Most research timemunicipal wasspent at premises interviewing civil servants by media NGOs), society the (represented (whereexisting) andeconomic enterprises. http://www.namrb.org/?lang=2. http://www.bamee.org/. Table 4 Bulgarian local governments vested in are many areas with specific 9 and the Association of municipal environmental experts environmental municipal of Association the and 10 64 , CEU eTD Collection process of data collection data and of analysis.process Ihave relied “initial on observations and of categoriesthe of Most 38). rules1967, and rule-making in LEG emerged within the see andvividly hear to reader the peoplethe in areaunderthe study” (Glaser and Strauss be “sensitizing” have categories to Second, providing – a “meaningful picture” “helps that be analytical – to features entities– designatingthe per sebut not their characteristics. have and essential theirThe categories elementtwo properties or of a category”. aspect by“stand itself” as aconceptual element is whereasaproperty of theory, ‘athe conceptual (3) delimiting and thengeneratingcharacterized integrating as(1) and(2) and categories their before properties, (4) writing the emerging generatingof method and analyzing This data. method involves four “stages” theory. A “category” a “constantpredetermined”Glasercomparative” (1967)propose and (Ezzy 2002). Strauss is consideredhence “thespecificcoding data, categories and the the themes of nature are not to Thematic86). 2002, analysisrequire themes the sorting not does into categories prior to of methods“process isidentifying a both are in themes (Ezzy that and data” the concepts The Thematic analysis is closely theory mentionedgrounded above. Coding to related in Thematic analysis Data analysis3.3. (Yin 2003, 53). my findings of generalizability” external the expanded immediately “have could I them, contexts of the cases differsome to extent and there are still similar conclusions from all of with morepowerful researcher cases” could provide the arguments. Sincetwo the 65 CEU eTD Collection beyond the perspective of the narrator and plot. This approach This andplot. has approach led actors of narrator beyondperspectivethe other me the to since stories of the reveals it2002) connections(Esterberg social and meaningscontext the to be sensible should one analysis narrative the In in rule-making. part their about Ribaritsa)of organization “Priroda”, the story they or (e.g. the or represent personal story their me told have interviewees Some reality. in happens what about narratives across understood as a story. In theanalysisThe narrative of rule-making process revealsthe alotabout because itcould becourse of case studies and direct observation I have come the study of existing rules in LEG and their main types. informal rules have this underpinned In research. relation, analysis the content the assisted appliedcategories in analysis. the Nevertheless theformal rules –legal and and strategic, isresearch only loosely existingbased on many therearenot theories theoretical is ausefulIt way of confirming testing apre-existing or Since theory (Ezzy 83). 2002, the analysis Content 2002). (Esterberg isdeductive most the type of analysis here.presented which which - aretexts shouldreports be systematicallyaccounts, procedural analysed collection data of was basedPart onreading168). and analyzing documents– legal texts, comparingcases, building typologies and conductinganalysis” acontent 2002, (Esterberg analysisThe data includes in (similarities “looking thedata patterns for and differences), Content analysis governance and environmental rules. “theoretical sensitivity”local environmental about (Dey develop 4) 1999, categories” to Narrative analysis 66 CEU eTD Collection problems of the municipalities. The variety of local circumstances determines stronger or stronger determines circumstances local of variety The municipalities. the of problems environmental specific and representation, political conditions, social and economic allof environmentaldetails rules andand into processes specificsthe size,depend on the that into going without picture overall an provides thesis the of nature explorative analysisBulgariathrough of rules and rule-making Nevertheless theprimarily processes. providesThe research comprehensive analysis of local environmental governance in Limitations 3.4. environmental governance could bedrawn. prevailingconclusionsthe result and tendencies about in structures Bulgarian local law,economic activities,and communitypartnerships, andcooperation involvement. As a analysis to contributes in andprocesses of rules, frameworkthe actors governance of by andcommunities networks markets, have been collected in case the studies. This approach common four the arrangements structural about of Data governance: hierarchies,(2000). A veryanalysis useful to approach of governance is developed by Pierre and Peters Governance structure analysis making and they how are deployed. rule-making. of This analysisprocess analysis to is connected of rule- of processes the The narrative analysis should be logical, anduseful coherent understand particular the to storytellers’the to they understandingscorrespond of 195-196). events 2002, (Esterberg always stories of apointview presuppose orperspective and should be evaluated whether in mind had that I narratives When evaluating inrule-making. roles and interests their and 67 CEU eTD Collection administration, incomparably higher social and financial capital, a wider spectrum of actors of spectrum wider a capital, financial and social higher incomparably administration, and mayors ward of sub-level one have administrations municipal local the to addition cities largest andthe governance reduced resources Sofia, Varna and Plovdiv which in caseinclude studies does not small municipalities under 10000 inhabitants with very As mentionedabove in discussionthe of methodology the theoretical samplingthe of the research allowed. formalof time the extent rulesthe indicated andthey and of are scope evolvingthe to There areinformaladministrative detected. were rules)rules influence that establishment and legal formal by regulated highly is which administration municipal of practice along with the formal legal and strategic rules many tacit or informal rules (even in the understanding of nature allthe of rules (March in firstas mentionedplace, however, informalthe above, rules provide lens to The informalin rulesspotlight not research,since are of the written rules areinvestigated debate. rules). Asaresult, thesis the provided empirical abroad for academicground and policy identifiedthose managementin belowof waste Europeanization the chapters (e.g. the as field environmental in governance local in tendencies main the on focuses municipalities Bulgarian of practice administrative and regulations legal of analysis and interviews The methodology of case study context. combinedapproach with key national informants specificcapacity create weaker rule-makingfor to rules actors local of inand other certain et al. 2000). While 2000). building cases upthe 68 CEU eTD Collection (Ramboll 2007). municipalities in 24 EPP of in development actors these of participation the of study a by confirmed was municipalities case at in rule-making businesses local and councils municipal NGOs, of participation of level low about finding the instance For consultants). from of with mostly quantitativewas triangulatedinternational (e.g. data literature reports large-scalehave industry emergeddue to Theconcentration. case study and interview data deterioration environmental of level high with municipalities in governance of patterns big another city municipality (Kardzhali)national and atlevel where in at addition some new informant key with interviews conducted I municipality large one only in study case the from findings the confirm To level. national at interviews and documents from data validitythe case study of findings has been triangulated with results from - sources other of theory local broader the environmental theirrelates to results governance. Inaddition The case studies in2003). this researchrely analyticalon generalization (Yin 2003) that (Yin reliability and validity its proving by ensured be should research a of quality The Validity and3.5. reliability local at level actors for other whichof NGOs or research isinthe detail. not greater hence less there, interviews observations of anddirect activities routine, the and practices information of the from Most processes there. the andobserved was collectedactors other My main municipalthe researchdeskwasat administrations’ offices andto Ireached out municipalities. all to apply LEG in making with higher and budgets capacity.mostfindingsHowever, concerning rules and rule- 69 CEU eTD Collection computer. in are stored folders strategies) (ordinances,documents on my transcriptions andother interviews Therecorded All weretranscribed weretaken. and coded. notes rest the for interviews mainthe of an and of questions Most of interview set wererecorded protocol. interviewsfor the a interviews andobservations. according The to direct conducted were interviewees,collecting and interviews. the recording data havea research journal I kept During188). field the 2000, researchIhave followed asimilar selecting to approach consistency and collection (Silverman of assigningof data categories procedures to data The reliability qualityof the achieve isas atest research of the to important a high level of cases. two other study has case been with one from compared and confirmedprocesses by of the those big municipalitiesKardzhali). (e.g. In general, findings the rules and actors, about case urban the compare of Dobrich with interviewsalsoto andanalysis document of other and Lukovit and Teteven – municipalities rural of cases similar from findings and accounts comparative (Silverman method The constant 2000) have been employedcompare to 70 CEU eTD Collection makingin domains like thebiodiversity casethe (e.g. of 2000areas Natura designation manyare there for activeoptions participation and leadership in and policyprocedures in addition but management) in waste (e.g. law environmental by prescribed functions to limited formally is field environmental in govern to municipalities of discretion The collection data the of environmental rules and rule-making in processes Bulgaria. investigate that case studies follow in three detail local governance the at levelcomplete to rules and rule-making from casestudies.the Against background the of this willchapter the findings about the from also level but national at interviews and reports legislation, of analysis document of basis the on emerged patterns institutional and legal prevailing The rules withinenvironmentalcreate andto education to their jurisdiction.protection staff,localand govern within – budget authority - to resources many spheres – from of governanceexploration andrules. heart the They at possess are the mainpowers decision-making with vested entities established legally stable, as council municipal and administration Municipal powers. their exert actors other and authorities local boundaries its within and government of unit administrative and territorial a is it Constitutionally research. the of analysis of unit main the is municipality The field. environmental willI In this chapter analyse main the characteristics of Bulgarian local governance in 4.1. Introduction to local environmental governance in Bulgaria IV. Bulgarian municipalities - arena for LEG 71 CEU eTD Collection with legacy of centralized decision-making and control, shrinking economy, with slender with economy, shrinking control, and decision-making centralized of legacy with (youngpeople leavingresources andeducated small, the medium andhuman even bigger towns), shrinking ever from starting municipalities Bulgarian the for occur shortages Many Againstthis background of overwhelming duties appears harshthe reality on ground.the environmental field planning. andon areas forstrategic Some of them are detailed in authorities. municipal for powers environmental other of host a for provides legislation Beside general the p.8). discretion given bylocally act law the to special environmental environmentalarea of and rational par.1, use of natural protection the (Art.17, resources all issues of local lawthe importance hasgiven that in including their competence..”, the citizensthe of opportunity and the authorities elected by them decide to independently on principle local of governance: “Local self-governmentis expressedin rightthe and real the Lawon Local the of Self-government para.1 17, and Local Art. Administration the states public shape direction the and intensity interventions. of their bottom-up local level by local andin elitesauthorities, actors some and instances other by general the influential as strong, act to and active participants. andThe interests positions defined at in that This argue every said could one of environmental aspect policy local areable actors national level) regionalwhere the and national environmental arecompetent. authorities local that showed elitesaffect couldpolicy accumulate to andefforts power choices at Table 4 and Box 1 on municipal formal competences in competences formal municipal on 1 Box and 72 CEU eTD Collection government—the municipal council and mayor—are elected directly by the population serveindependent it itscan interests. use to The that andbodiesbudget property of local own has It entity. legal a is municipality The centre. administrative the after named is then municipality The settlements. component the of territories the of comprises territory its Ivanov in explained is municipalities Bulgarian of division territorial and administrative The institution a tierand national of the (2) government.” (Drumeva 2000). frameworkis stability the localof self-government democratic as an (1) autonomous this of feature key “The Bulgaria. in government local of principles constitutional the for provides administration local and self-government local on seven chapter Further self-government”. local with state unitary a be shall Bulgaria of Republic “The in(DrumevaThe constitution, in force 2000). states from 1991, its second article that withinsystem a of soviet-type councils, established as“local power” bodies of state principlessubstantial “underwent changes: administrative decentralization was effected self-government traditional the them In government. local on full a chapter contained 1971 self-government.provision to subsequentconstitutionsThe two of Bulgaria of 1947 and The firstBulgarian constitution—the Constitution Turnovo of a 1879—devoted single 4.2. Bulgarian local governance 11 Bulgarian of regions 10leastthe (out developed regions in EU –5arein Bulgaria financialdirectly resources availablemunicipalities to in overallthe underdeveloped http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_PUBLIC/1-18022010-AP/EN/1-18022010-AP-EN.PDF. et al. (2000, 177). “The municipality(2000, is comprised of moreone or settlements and 11 ). 73 CEU eTD Collection economically and socially degrading communities. degrading socially and economically municipality is biggest of andone the power employers of acentre in anddepopulated, and social decline.was clearlyThat inobserved all studied municipalities where economic the the of result a as capacity experts’ limited from suffer municipalities Bulgarian of majority The interests. national and local both considering thinking strategic showing leaders with and inplace will political with case ideal if in even tasks the to up measure to resources financial human have and not do they hand, other the On municipalities. is there a hand, one vast on field andplans. So, of rulesgovernance through for the strategies developing while policies own their on decide to and legislate to governments governmentconcerning many rules are – there fields of legal local forcompetences local Bulgarian of set-up constitutional the in originating conundrum inherent is There various subjectareas like environment, social affairs,with etc. education, dealing legislation special the in and Budget State of System on Law the Property, Territorial Lawon Planning,the part Municipal Lawon the Lawon the State Property, Administration, LawonMunicipal the LawonLocal the Taxes Budgets, and Fees, and in Constitution of the RepublicThe principal competences of Bulgarian local governmental authorities areprovided in the of Bulgaria, the Law on Local Self-government term of four years (Kimura 2000). and Localmunicipality mayorthe and executive the directlyauthorities authority, both elected for a the of branch legislative the is council Municipal mayoralties.” and units—districts structural own their have still can municipalities The municipality. whole the within 74 CEU eTD Collection are classified as rural. Most of the municipalities have a municipal centre and settlements and centre municipal a have municipalities the of Most rural. as classified are people.Accordingthis30 000 definition, to of 264 municipalities231 out total over in Bulgaria population has settlement no in which (LAU1), municipalities as areas rural defines according to the classificationthe according to of Rural Development Program 2007-2013 sq.km (Swianiewicz 2002) governments” with averagepopulation of 35000 inhabitants and average areaof 432 13 (http://www.namrb.org/?act=cms&id=131). of average area and 442 sq.km. is average populationof Bulgaria 30000 inhabitants 12 Ivanov countries, especially European Eastern most in size and population (Swianiewicz 2002, size and functions of The structure, Bulgarian local governments differ substantially from development. economic local of promotion and society civil a of strong possibility greater a is there respectively, and, society pluralistic a representing groups interest for space more provides consolidation territorial politics; local in participation local functions,governmentsmore provide which may higherlead to public interestand manyin local scale services; small at spillovers; related to local costs largegovernments produce economy consolidation: territorial for arguments essential most the provides less than 1000 citizens and only few less than 2000 (Swianiewicz 2002). The author endthe of 1980sand255 at 2178 in 264by 1949to now. None of local governments has general tendency number the in East-Central Europe municipalities of was reduced from In Bulgariais there aclear tendency consolidationterritorial for and asa of the part http://www.mzh.government.bg/Articles/432/Files/BG-RDP-2007-2013-eng633834441195156250.pdf. Thelatest information onweb the site of the National Association of Municipalities in Republic of et al. 2002). Bulgaria 2002). belongs“the of to group countries with relatively large local 12 . Most of Bulgarianthe of Most municipalities. as arecategorized rural 13 . The program 75 CEU eTD Collection related to policies related to and the latter rules institutions”related to In nextthe (p.140). pages rules examines former “the them: defines 145) (2010, Dimitrova as rules formal EU-driven of institutionalization and implementation for both important are Actors competences. oflocal process governance are usually established andauthorized by virtue of their legal constitutional, national to according and local theirpowers whodrive rules. the Theactors The municipality is ageographic andinstitutional exercisewhere actors space of power 4.3. Who are the local actors? MinistrySource: of Agriculture andBulgaria Food, Bulgarian rural municipalities.Map of Figure 1 Figure 1)and42%of population.the biggercities.around rural The areas (in Bulgarianof the blue) 81% (see represent territory around it.In this case we could say that outside this number there are 33 big municipalities 76 CEU eTD Collection competences include: The competence. of field inevery policy local the implementing the for importance He/she has57). some2000, major and prerogatives his/her decisions are of vital (Drumeva governor.” regional by the represented administration, state the of supervision municipalityThe mayorand (2) of performance anhis of herduties by or law,municipal a acts and decisions taken by municipality people.the administrativeAdministration).He/she is “the municipal of organ executive and power is guided in the has body two Local Lawon of the Self-governmentexecutivepar.1 authority (Art.38, and Local municipal and roles:whose administration municipal the of head the is mayor The rulings(1) structure. staff a to a according local administration municipal and and deputy-mayors by assisted is self-governmentmayor actions The council. municipal and mayor – authorities public two by fallconstituted is self-government local The under body theThe Mayor in the governance. environmental local in Bulgarian actors local important of review short a follows x x x x x x to organize and report on the execution of the municipal council’s decisions; council’s municipal the of execution the on report and organize to programs; long-term of implementation the organize to organize and preparation the executionto of municipalthe budget; penalties; disciplinary impose to and administration municipal the of staff junior and senior dismiss and appoint to guidespecialized of work andthe to coordinate executive bodies; head executive the activitiesto of municipality;the 77 CEU eTD Collection and are not civil servants like in most other municipalities. other most in like servants civil not are and municipality with basis contractual on hired are lawyers where municipality Lukovit of and municipality rural Dobrich of in case like employed be will services external whether and decidesmany how environmentallawyers or municipalexperts the administration needs investigating for will be incharge who decides mayor fieldthe inenvironmental instance For a signal for a breach of a municipal ordinance (Interview L01). He/she x x x x x x x to provide organizational and technical support to the municipal council. municipal the to support technical and organizational provide to court; municipality the represent to before natural and legal andpersons before the amendment; and implementation their organize to and council municipal by the approved been have that plans development urban sign to accidents; calamitiesnatural against population and the of protection organize to local andgovernments other nationally and abroad; movements organizations, public parties, political with contacts maintain to and monitor theircoordinate performance; mayorsthe delegate functions of mayoraltiesto and districts and to President of the Republic and by the Council of Ministers; organize fulfilment the to as derivedof tasks by law and by acts issued by the (Art.44 of LLSLA) of (Art.44 78 CEU eTD Collection Spatial Planning, and Environmental Projects Directorate or Tourism, Environment, Tourism, or Directorate Projects Environmental and Planning, Spatial functions andorganizational 28 and management e.g.Environment,structures, Territorial in Bulgariafoundwere 28names there of units performingmunicipalities environmental 38 protection surveyed which report a to According duties. protection environmental with tasked units of types various are be might there administration municipal the Within municipality. to municipality from vary protection in environmental involved directly dynamics isspecial of forinterest this research.Theexpertise and and dutiesof experts the structure its and decision-making local of point focal a is administration municipal The that we could get also the more important food there.” (Interview T01). that Sofiais isperformance. good It near,theatre so “They usa show ayearcometo one incomesocial but and cultural life. One remark interviewof one in has me: Teteven struck higher and only employment not offer They emigrated. not has if one work live and in country. Bigthe cities like Sofia, Plovdiv, arepreferred and Varna places Bourgas to human resources financial and of distribution disproportionate the given them, on pressure political and duties legal their with struggling are municipalities many wonder no managed, Given vast the MoEW). array beof functions or need to RIEW that and resources administrative to and likesupport on procedures SEA and EIA(in competencethe of information with providing to management in waste legislating from – area environmental enjoystourism, health economy, It care, uneven etc. sport, incompetences education, various governmentalcovers activities from – environmental social to care, protection that multifunctionality its is administration municipal the of characteristic general One Municipal administration 79 CEU eTD Collection the status of a directorate. Most often they often are involved Most in spatiala directorate. of planning status the and half of of case 150 000(the of Dobrich)000 to 50 is there a departmentwithseparate and/or sector population with municipalities In etc. issues, youth tourism, sport, like duties, functional with "cleanliness"multi-of directorates in arepart departments casesthe both, other or environmental activities protection arecombined with "green systems" management, with casepopulation50 000(the of Teteven andof 20 000to Lukovit -medium-sized) various functions, including environmentIn municipalities2009, 24). (EPTISA protection of 38 studied municipalitiesout with population 10000 one specialist of up to small combines 7 In environment. including functions many of charge in is that expert one be could environmental“our In veryexpert”. small municipalities (population 10000)there up to is alsoan internal atas are pointed whopersons agreementand nomination two of or one Beside formal constitution ofresponsibilities during case the studies it there that found out include: should units and experts environmental the by responsibilities ActivitiesYouth The primaryDepartment 2009). and(EPTISA, Sport professional x x x x x x campaigns” from Ramboll (adopted 10). 2007, information organizing public, the informing concerned, parties of Involving functions; control – spot the on Examinations including control on the mayor’slaw the orders, decisions, with etc.; conformity on control and acts legal local of updating and Developing developmentProject – funding environmental other program/or the projects; Providing administrative population; servicesthe to plans and programmes; environmental municipal the of implementation the of coordination and Monitoring 80 CEU eTD Collection me and there is no way that we work with you”. prefers to work with people he/she trusts and could say to the old employees “You are not sympathetic to 14 environmental protection. studies of this confirm research of administrative patchwork the for case structures The level. local at priorities national the implement to requirements the to up measure employmentmunicipalat level unitsthe of andenvironmental they sothat could experts, recommends improvement of organizational and management and of terms structures strategy The activities. conflicting other with it combining or activity this of underrating the illustrates which implementation, policy environmental in municipalities the before challenges main the of one as level municipal at activities protection environmental performing units the of and experts environmental of status unregulated the on reflects 68) needed personally decision administrationthe headof ofthe mayor: –the manyhow andexperts who is capacity and traditions of municipality.the needs, the The administrative to depends on the structure adjusted is it that so administration municipal within structure protection Bulgarianis that fact legislation the factor require any not does formal environmental Another municipalities. of capacity financial and in human and size, population in foremost Logicallyvariety the of organization of environmental firstexpertise isand rooted 2009, 24). (EPTISA in department/sector.” programmes the andprojects" or namethe of directorate the "European "investments", "programmes/projects", following: the of one have them One interviewee at Tetevenmunicipality has shared thatwhena new mayorcomes the officein he/she 14 . In the sameIn the . vein National Environmental (2009, 2009-2018 Strategy 81 CEU eTD Collection special status but in combination with tourism, youth issues, transport, infrastructure, transport, issues, youth tourism, with combination in but status special a with not although commissions council of areas subject the of one is environment The management waste ordinanceenvironmentalthe on program, and green areas. protection making.considers It and all approves formal legal and strategic rules: e.g. the municipal rule- environmental in local role important with vested formally is council municipal The 000 inhabitants.30 to up population with councillors 21 with are municipalities two other the inhabitants, case study municipalities only Dobrich has 41councillorsFrom with population above 100000 councillors. 61 – Municipality Sofia in and inhabitants 000 160 above municipalities in councillors 51 to inhabitants 10000 to up municipalities in councillors 13 from Self-governance andLocal Administration is calculated basis on of population and varies Local on Law the to according council municipal in councillors municipal of number The Municipal council Referencesthe reportsto under these projects level. couldlocal be foundat elsewhere acquis in the thesis. environmental of implementation for years recent the in projects capacity building and networkinghas among implemented experts. It these somein large EU role important an plays and %) (67 municipalities 176 from experts environmental environmentalwhich (BAMEE) was experts established inrepresents It 1995. municipal of association the of members are them of most addition In municipalities. size similar or neighbouring from colleagues of networks professional informal many on duties their of performance the in rely also experts environmental Municipal 82 CEU eTD Collection para.2 EPA). governmental actors non- and (e.g. parties interested other inof involvement the EIAregulating – procedures Art.of prescriptions 95, para.3 detailed many into EPA, transferred is in principle SEA This – EPA). inof Art.para.4 87,(Art.3, para.1process making and decision- environmental the of transparency and participation public is the protection environmental of principles the of One in Bulgaria. governance in environmental stake with (NGOs), organizations non-governmental including institutions, and many actors Alongsidewith official the directlyauthorities charged with environmental are duties there NGOs council. decision-makingthe powers; he only couldbe preparethedrafts passed to by municipal not but capacity administrative the has hand, other the on mayor, The councillors. the of by supported majoritythe not of councilthe could activate interests the andis participation mayor the when struggles political or projects) landfill regional (the stake financial high with issues Kardzhali), in pollution air extreme the (like problems environmental acute rulesonly new –it the rules and votes accepts byprepared administration.the Only very formal to comes it when rule-making in player active very not is council municipal reasons job andlittle another timeconsider inthese to details council the Dueto acts the adopts. have councillors The Teteven). and Lukovit urban, in Dobrich (e.g. subject environmental professionalsthe the iscommissions whoseexpertise are to closest veterinarian doctors in and the councils the to experts environmental not are there Usually etc. planning, urban 83 CEU eTD Collection levelactivities the NGOsare limitedthe of for financial and human capacity In reasons. 131 and case 137).The 2001, studies andsourcesclearly data other localat show that low organizational due to eligibility fundsfor EU and their dependence on funds (Clarke Local equal.NGOs areless likelyoffer and mobilize coordination to is mainly It resources. organizationalnecessary resources for governance tasks”(Clarke not 129) are 2001, hierarchies”andstate forces andmarket “their the potential for mobilizing and coordinating outside coordination “offer to abilities Their local. or national - operations their salience the factors of environmental inNGOs roles public life level dependson the of meaning of their “nonprofitness” (DeMaggioand AnheirIn addition141). 1990, these to policy such asstate andlaw, factors cultural roles and ideologies as much as by elusivethe institutional by constituted is governance democratic and life in public NGOs of role The NGOs. environmental from information on based were law environmental EU under obligations its fulfil to failure for Bulgaria against Commission European the of Strandja inPark Bulgaria. Nature of South-Eastern Some of infringementthe procedures and Areasboundariesspecial thestatus guaranteed Law that amendment Protected the to environmental policy.In one instance under public Parliament the pressure passed a national the in influencing role critical played campaigns and coalitions environmental the plantinnuclear power Belene. lastyearsIn the andparticularly after Bulgariathe joined like EU projects damaging environmentally its and regime communist against protests the of frontline the at were Ekoglasnost like movements Environmental Bulgaria. of history democratic inrecent activism of record good a have NGOs environmental Bulgarian 84 CEU eTD Collection Local business consultants as it is exemplified in case studies chapters. leaving all governance spaceinthe thehands of municipal and theirbureaucrats interests in local environmental governance duringrule-making related to procedures the their pronounce actively not does Bulgaria in NGOs and communities local sum, In MEPPs” of development of process the in participating in interest public specific no is there - municipality; is commonly MEPP of the preparation the - lack dueto of capacity outsourced at the different due to reasons: “During developmentthe is there of MEEP the stage practically nopublic participation argument(COWI8): 2008, similar makes (MEEP) Programmes Protection Environmental Municipal of development ininterest environmental in form the they andprocedures scope on exist A now. report affecttheir Generallywelfare EIA procedures). and (e.g. private interests isthere lack of peoplecomplex rarely to relate administrative environmental unless these procedures because rule-making environmental to peripheral is public general of participation The General public experiences will and resources be highlighted. chaptersinstancesstudy case of the involvement of national NGOs with higher status, 85 CEU eTD Collection councilors it is pointed out below. out pointed is it councilors ofbusinessprocedures people iscommon not unless they act in the capacity of municipal handling of environmental issues” (Ramboll The participation2007, 116). in rule-making municipalitiessome business to refer in company the cooperate as being to apartner regarded as such by as regarded municipalities.the Only four ( isbeing and terms, in relative one weakest the is companies business the with cooperation on municipalexchange informationa report of according to administrative capacity. “The and in interaction true especially is This poor. relatively is community in interests wider local of with authorities businessthe The cooperation and as partner of representative cities –Sofia, Plovdiv Varna, and Bourgas. policyprogrammes and other documents are undertaken by companies from biggerthe management water services.The consultancy services for drafting of environmental implementationOperationalunder orin Programs) (e.g. ofprojects delivering and waste the under mostly municipality to services provide business local the role latter the candidate. In oranother one not or preferencestheir of employees support otherwise or businessbecause also during elections theemployers could indirectly influence local the with terms good on being about sensitive are leaders Municipal council. municipal employersfor local and important of economy managers asowners are members whoor of role the in either authorities, local of decisions the influence to powers and interest have businesses local role former the In services. environmental of delivery in authorities services delivery with environmental of local effects and andcontractor aspartner localBusiness levelat is represented inmain two running roles: asand actor production out of 26 – myremark out of ) of the 86 CEU eTD Collection observed in waste management, air protection and noise, and of legal centralism in centralism legal of and noise, and protection air management, waste in observed be could localism legal of Examples centralism. and localism legal between hybrid a as defined be could provision service and protection environmental field of in the governance In this government”central 21). 1991, sense (Page theBulgarian model of local of intervention the without decisions make to collectivity a as municipality the of “ability which they formallyare responsible.”In this 1991,20-21). respectdiscretion (Page means reflects “freedom the It of local 13). 1991, deliver governments services to those for (Page services these about decision-making in discretion wide enjoy elites administrative and political local in which and level, local the at functions of range wide provides that system government local a as understood is localism Legal services. public deliver to discretion their and governments local of opportunities the of scale legal on discussion localism on (1991) In Page’sbook and centralism is there in very Europe relevant discretion specified by law. administrative of modes and scope the and law the by bound is administration Bulgarian different between resolution (Knill societal As actors” 65). case the of 2001, Germany the conflict of ameans as serving then rather in society intervening for state the of instrument principles appliedindividual to cases” (Knill basicIts 2001, 64-65). function is “of an general and abstract of definition by the “characterised and philosophy” substantive and “deductive on based is It principles. law Roman the on built system legal Bulgarian the at going detailsBeforethe into of environmental local at competences level,we needlook to 4.4. Municipal competences in environmental field 87 CEU eTD Collection municipal authorities have competences in almost all environmental protection areas. protection environmental all almost in competences have authorities municipal of The competences Bulgarian local inauthorities environmental field “[T]he broad. are (Art.10 of EPA). citiessubdividedintowards,in the and, theward mayors as well; theregional governors Directorate directors; the NationalPark Directorate directors; the municipality mayors Inspectorate ofEnvironment andWaterthe Regional (RIEW) directors; theBasin Water;the ExecutiveEnvironmentAgency; theExecutiveDirector and of Environment of environmental Environmentalthe to Actare the accordingauthorities Protection The legallycompetent actors. competent, categories: andother authorities, authorized, two into defined be could governance environmental inBulgarian actors Main (Art.55). environment.” the shall protect They norms. and standards established to corresponding environment favourable and healthy a to right the shall have “Everyone environment. Fundamental on chapter rights and duties of citizen isthere only articleone dedicated to and the sensiblein variety, all its living of nature utilizationconservation the environment, the of reproduction and protection the ensure ofshall the Bulgaria of “Republic country'sconstitution Bulgarian the to naturalAccording and other resources” (Art.15). In the conservation isin not of competence municipalities). nature (e.g. extensive as isnot policy inenvironmental decentralization 2009) Hovik, and (Falleth Norway unlike Still N06). (Interview guidance and control administrative of grip municipalities to delegates recent tendency more powers state the and has loosened upthe biodiversity, andclimatesoil protection, change management. andwater Asan emerging Minister 88 CEU eTD Collection competences, sector-by-sector (see Box Box 1 below). (see sector-by-sector competences, municipalities’ the of types classifies and summarizes report the Further protection.” nature quality, air management, waste legislation, horizontal sectors: following in the are authorities municipal of competences important most the present At legislation. which various characters, of competences almostconcern all of environmental sectors the of Ramboll that“the municipalA report states 4-5) (2007, authorities have numerous approval. for council the to submitted is programme environmental municipal of implementation on report a year every – functions control addition by programs and also -are strategies adopted voting by council.the The councilplans, – has in documents strategic The sessions. council’s municipal at voted and commissions council municipal in discussed are drafts the Then administration. municipal by prepared management,waste cleanliness of public maintenance areas, on green of systems) are (e.g. environment of field in the including application, and importance local of acts All of localthe authorities.” (Ramboll 2007, 51). of municipality territory the on generated waste the for is entirely decisionsthe subject to effectivelymost developed managementwhere inmanagementwaste waste sector, policy principlethe However, local for self-governmentas envisaged in17 of the LSLAA, Art. is 89 CEU eTD Collection sustainable use and restoration of the soils protection,sustainable use and restoration of the soils. 15 Box 1Types of municipal environmental competences. Adopted from Ramboll 2007. zones, bathing zones and others“. procedures foradoption of management plansforprotected areas, establishment of sanitary protected proceduresmaking of other competent authorities - by presentation of opinions inEIA procedures, andthe Participation in coordination procedures environmental information on the public - on regular basis casesand in of accidents. dutiesall environmental in sectors obliged andare by the law to present a certain amount of participation andpublic information public Announcement, by the law, inallsectors. authorities obliged are tocarry out control andto impose administrative sanctions in the cases envisaged andcompulsive measures sanctions ofadministrative and imposing Control protectionnature sector. implementation of permit regimes (registration) the waste management noise and on the territory of the relevant municipality. Regulating through adoption of acts locallegislative implementationTheir should be reported to the municipal councils. authorities are obliged to undertake all the measures actions,and envisaged municipal inthe programs. andplans programs protection environmental municipal of the Implementation management programs, airquality management programs andmedicinal plantssection “ According to the Law on Soils, municipalities adopt andimplement municipal programs on protection, Planning and policy development policy and Planning - the municipal -the EPP itsintegralparts and - municipal waste – the municipal –the authorities participate in different decision- – the municipal– the authorities have such duties only in – the municipal councils adopt regulations e.g. on –themunicipal authorities perform these Regulating through 15 –themunicipal –themunicipal . 90 CEU eTD Collection 16 Source: Adopted from MoEW home page Table 3Financial scheme of OP Environment 2007-2013. period 2007-2013. planning the within Bulgaria for allocated money the shows below 3 Table Environment. Programme Operational the under funding the is investments environmental municipal for source financial major The paid). was Program Protection Environmental Municipal the of awareness raising, from campaigns,this drafting (e.g. the account fees etc. consultants, for for – activities environmental for line budget small allocate could municipality the management waste on collected management from waste fees. some In cases like Dobrich The municipalitieshave donot special budgets onenvironmentbeside the budgetaccount 4.5. Financial framework development of water and of water development http://ope.moew.government.bg/en/info restorationof biodiversity wastewaterinfrastructure treatment infrastructure development of waste Technical assistance Technical Priority 4 – ERDF Priority 2 - ERDF Improvement and Improvement and Priority 3- ERDF Preservation and Priority Priority 1 -CF Priority 103 308048 366 743574 46 2.5% 488 622 1 284207 of amount the funds the Total 841 amount in amount 71.3% .0 87 15 811 496 841 207 5.80% 311 55 732 011 038 20.4% 536 Total 16 % . EU Financing EU 95 53 9 6 973 39 293 515 329 1 027366 Amount 273 256 841568 co-financing National Amount Average %of Average EU financing EU 85% 85% 80% 85 91 CEU eTD Collection Committee, Internal Audit Directorate within the Ministry of Environment and Water, and Environment of Ministry the within Directorate Audit Internal Committee, Coordination and Selection Project Committee, Monitoring Body, Intermediate Beneficiaries under priority axis 4 ( and Water administrations, managing national and natural parks, respectively NATURA for 2000 management responsible Food and Agriculture of Ministry the within and Water and Environment municipal authorities,associations of municipalities Beneficiaries under priority axis 3 (emphasis added) infrastructure): Beneficiaries under priority axis 2 added); supply water and sewagecompanies, River Basin ManagementDirectorates settlements within below PE 2000 urban agglomeration areas): infrastructurein settlementswastewater with over2000population equivalent and in PE Beneficiaries under priority axis 1 governance playersbecome strong beneficiaries - The local actors Environment OP underthe adecisive get advantage to (emphasis added) non-governmental organizations, municipal administrations, regionalassociations of municipalities ; ; . (Improvement and development of waste treatment waste of development and (Improvement Technical assistance (Improvement and development of water and water of development and (Improvement (Preservation and restoration of biodiversity) Regional Inspectorates of Environment of Inspectorates Regional , directorates within the Ministry of ): OPE Managing Authority, municipal administrations (emphasis 92 : , CEU eTD Collection sustainable Againsystems 1.5.) here main (Operation the urbantransport beneficiaries are PriorityUnder Axis 1Sustainable Urban and Integrated Developmentare supported collectionwaste and disposal systemssmall-scale 4.1. (Operation local investments). fundedthe activitiesflood are prevention, purchase of equipmentfor organization of 18 17 fall into this and category require ahigher intensitydevelopment” to of support municipalities etc. declining, industrially rural, mountain, “peripheral – status peripheral small the targeting development andco-operation municipalities by threatened permanent Regional Development.Such investments example arefor underPriority Axis 4 Local Additional fundingenvironmental for activities is provided under Operational Program are. municipalities the for problems immediate biggest the also where landfills) management management andwaste (sewage systems treatment) (regional and wastewater financial and human – resources all that reason simple the for even agenda municipal on high not is are employedIn additionas case itstudies could bepointed out also have demonstrated thatbiodiversity assistancerespectively – and funding% 2.5of total withthe 5.80 for whole the period. to get a negligibleaccess onlypotential to as share in areasof the biodiversity and technical much asMunicipal administrationsbeneficiary are with the lion’s sharewhereas NGOs have a possible fromand 3. the bigworking established groups for purposes of the OP,beneficiariesthe under priorities 1,2 money in water http://www.bgregio.eu/Content.aspx?menu=left&pid=29 http://ope.moew.government.bg/en/beneficiary. 17 18 . Among . 93 CEU eTD Collection Strategic Ordinance Act/SEA Protection Environmental legislation/ Horizontal baseLegal competence/ Area of and types of rules. additionmany to in partnershipsprojects, form and that networks another domain rules of of sources developing for and activities their and actors local of positioning for grounds various administrative authorities. These of other competences procedures provide in participation public facilitating and dissemination information with role supporting play they environment.are leadingIn some procedures inauthority, casesthey competent other Table 4 4.6. Sources of rules 3000 BGNand less than 5 %of funds).the mayoralties, schools, kindergartens and NGOs(with smallestthe up shareprojects to –20 inClean 2011For Environmentmil.1.25 (for BGN) funded projects of municipalities, activitiesnational according to and municipal last andThe campaign programs. strategies and projects environmental for budget national the from funding provides MoEW the to Activities Protection Environmental of Management for Enterprise The municipalities. the shows by sectors some important competences of municipalities in the field of field the in municipalities of competences important some sectors by shows Mayors of municipalities draft andwastespatial planning management. programs subject to SEA in the field of Municipalities are proponents of plans and Main municipal competences the SEA Ordinance). SEA the (Art.13, para.1 andArt.20, para.1 of on plans and programs affecting them The municipalities could be consulted consultations) (e.g. participation in procedures of Supporting role of municipalities 94 CEU eTD Collection (LW) Water on Law management Water Act (SPA) Soil Protection protection Soil (PAA) Act Areas Protected Biodiversity Act Protection Environmental planning/ municipality prepared by the mayor water supply and water sewage system inthe The municipal council adopts a program for and mayors atlocal level (Art.10a LW). policy is decided by the municipal councils system sewage water and supply water The LW). para.4 (Art.9, Supreme Consultative Council onWater Municipalities could be members of the use and rehabilitation of soils (Art.26 SPA). Prepare programs forprotection, sustainable rehabilitation of soils (Art.4, para.3). level for protection,sustainable use and local at of policy developing for Responsible PAA). par.2 of (Art.58, drafting PA Couldplans assign likeNGOs’) actors governmental (Art.79). process is required the participation of non- by municipal councils. (Inthe drafting environmental protectionprograms passed waters concessions (Art.98 LW) (Art.98 concessions waters Participation the processin of mineral SPA). para.2 according to Art. 21 of SPA. (Art.11, contaminated soils a registerin of entering for proposals Submit PAA). (PA)areas (Art.37 discussions fordesignation of protected Municipalities take the part in PAA). par.1 (Art.36, institutes, public organizations) municipalities (as well as by academic could designation be made by Proposals for nature national and park 95 CEU eTD Collection Table 4Municipal competencies and participation in procedures on environmental issues (LN) Noise on Law Noise (CAA) Act Air Clean Air quality (EEA) Act Efficiency change Climate (LF) Forests Law on management Forest Act (WMA) management Waste management Waste Energy strategic maps on noise (Art.5, par.1-6 LN). par.1-6 maps onnoise (Art.5, strategic The municipalities could assign draftingof CAA). par.2 the airquality in theirterritory (Art.19, Control andmanage the activities related to CAA). reductionof the pollutants levels (Art.27 The municipalities could adopt programs for 2of and EEA). para.1 (Art.11, programs energy efficiency implementationand The municipalities could prepare plans for LF). para.2 council(Art.14a, forest funds is decided by municipal the the from lands and of forests Exclusion LF). para.4 council (Art.53, municipal the property - isdecidedfunds –municipal by The use of forests and lands in the forest WMA). (Art.29 programs management The municipalities prepare waste (Art.10c, LW).(Art.10c, (Art.20 CAA). (Art.20 control of the quality of the ambient air local systems formonitoring and The municipalities could establish 19a WMA). (Art. exploitationand of regional landfills municipal associationfor construction Municipalities could associate a in 96 CEU eTD Collection relations with local thereby“(emphasis settled importance not of the (Art.8 added) ingovern, complianceordinances to normative with superior of higher acts level, social issue may councils municipal „All acts. legal issue to authority the have councils Municipal have been passed in Bulgarianthe municipalities. new ordinancespar.10 on developmentArt.62, Act, and maintenance of green systems Planning Terrorial of delegation the Following components. and factors environmental new Ordinance Plovdiv of municipality,the passed in like 2009, which covers most of the protection environmental on ordinance one in legislation local of codifying have Some latermanagement developments No.86/2003). Gazette in September (State 2003 managementordinances waste by on passed triggered newLaw were the on waste also environmentalother issues.in Later the end of 1990’s and beginning of 2000’s general ordinances which public with together and keeping order the cleanliness handled environmental policies in general local and at level. beginningIn the mostly were there history local ofthe The recent legislation path of developement the the tracks of Legislation4.6.1. local of sources rules legislation arethe main environmentaland strategic The planning andpolicy.etc. hearing, host to participants, invite to mobilize, to announce, to – level municipalpeople and could make local closestto at things ones are the authorities work The T10). (Interview experts” environmental their and municipalities the without anything Arepresentativecarryingforof procedures. of RIEW claimedout “wedo could that: not instrumental still but authority leading the not are municipalities the procedures many In 97 CEU eTD Collection documents definedocuments certain policy be achieved goals to by municipalthe leadership and planning local The Administration). Local and Self-government Local on Law the of reflect policiesalso European the for development of local communities.” para.12 (Art.21, andprograms plans prognoses, development forstrategies, of municipality,the which adopts council municipal “The rules. environmental strategic formal of rule-making Bulgarian of The competences municipalities in local planning for arealso source abroad Environmental4.6.2. planning andpolicy andcasesinstories thethesis. the of in most threads red the of one is This governance. environmental local Bulgarian thehighestrepresents legaldegree of localism anddetailed most picture of current policy management waste projects investment other and landfills regional of funding considerdelegation authoritiesof As to more a result powers. of decentralization and EU more detailedshow capacity rules to and leadershipcould bea that sign for national and larger formulate or law by provided space the even fill in not could still governments rule-making constitutional the arrangements also according but to fact the local that inenvironmental centralism legal ruling the shows legislation local of space limited The (Plovdiv). air and soils protection, biodiversity covering versions codified to clean city the keeping of environmentalaspects of other local rules on protection importance –ranging from developing of competence general and rules, impose to municipalities to laws specific Normative Acts Law). There are two paths for local rule-making – direct delegation of 98 CEU eTD Collection documents. main the sets objectives strategic and and local sectoral aframeworkfor the planning Strategy Environmental National the level national At listed. are protection environmental of action” Box In the 2 16 (Knight documentsstrategic 67). 1992, related closely to environmental planning which posechallenges rules as create “guides to for future courses of field in the opportunities many have municipalities Bulgarian administration. 99 CEU eTD Collection municipality: municipal development plan, municipal master plan, environmental plan, master municipal plan, development municipal municipality: in because practice of theiradopted few highare importance for overall planningonly of the municipalities for spheres planning the indicating documents strategic 16 these of Out be preparedbythe municipalities. Source: COWI and MoEW list of plans and programs in the environmentalBox 2 Programs field and planswhich on couldmunicipal level. Municipal Environment Protection Programme 15. 14. 13. 12. 11. 10. 9. 8. 7. 6. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. waters Ordinance of requirements the with municipality Air); Ambient of the management and assessment for ambient airquality for air); ofambient quality Ordinance air; ambient ofthe quality on Act to established norms according to Art. 6 of the Act on quality Act); Soils of ambient air Environment); inthe Noise from on Protection Act species); animal and plant Ordinance areas); of protected management for of plans development for Ordinance of theterritory municipality Municipal tourism development strategy Municipal roadrepair/reconstruction plan; Municipal urban transport development plan; Municipal Master Plan Plan Municipal Development Program for achievement compliance of ofthe bathing zonesin the territory of the Operational action plan for reduction of the risk of exceeding ofthe established norms Program reductionfor of the pollutants levelin ambient air and achievement of useandsustainable rehabilitation program protection, Municipalsoil environment the in noise of reduction and prevention for plan Action plant and animal planforpriority species Action Protected AreasManagement Plan Municipal WasteManagement Program Plan for elimination of the effects from of accidents and burst pollution within the within pollution burst and accidents of from effects the of elimination for Plan Energy EfficiencyEnergy Program (according to Ordinance on the quality of the bathing waters bathing ofthe quality onthe Ordinance to (according ʋ 5 on the conditions and procedure for drafting of action plans for priority for plans action of drafting for procedure and conditions on the 5 (according to Territory Planning Act); Planning Territory to (according (according to Act on quality of the ambient air; Ordinance Ordinance air; ambient ofthe on quality Act to (according (according to Energy Efficiency Act); Efficiency Energy to (according (according to Environmental Protection Act); Protection Environmental to (according (according to Regional Development Act); Development Regional to (according (according to Biodiversity Act; Protected Areas Act; Areas Protected Act; Biodiversity to (according (according to Waste Management Act); Management Waste to (according . (according to Environmental Protection Act); Protection Environmental to (according ʋ 7 for assessment and management of the of management and assessment 7for ʋ 11 on the quality of the bathing the of quality the on 11 (according to Biodiversity Act; Biodiversity to (according ); (according to the to (according (according to (according (according ʋ 100 7 CEU eTD Collection official for coordination of the programme implementation; the implementation; programme the of coordination for official requirementsImplementation of Program”the of Guidelinesthe (MoEW 2009, 9)the following to the programespecially of implementation. stage the at heading Underthe “Organization of implementationhappens manner innarrow because amost some recommendations followedare not atall shouldEPP guidelinesthe be preparedaccording to are listed: “the responsibleacting accordingly by environmental tailoring to program the investments needs. unit becomesrelevance program critical the of a good Programs and municipal the leaders are andOperational the from funding of times in theEspecially programme”. environmental municipal respective the in projects priority as justified are projects said ifthe solely financed be may funds national from or budget national the financingfrom for by municipalities proposed incentive for Bulgarian municipalities. asfollows: reads EPA the 80 of “Projects Art. strategic a also but obligation legal a is EPP of Adopting measures. and goals specific socio-economic development,the environmental the and generalcomponents draws andanalyses municipality, the at conditions environmental the detail in describes It protection. environmental fieldof in the tool planning a as governance environmental of core the at lies it and planning environmental for indicative highly is EPP of drafting of process The Environmental Protection Programme (EPP) managecapacity to them which are still lacking. and municipalities from vision broader a requires range whole The programme. quality air management programme, waste programmeprotection bigger and for the cities –ambient 19 of MoEW but in practice this 101 CEU eTD Collection 19 urban. Dobrich and Lukovit exploredin presenting thenext casestudy chapters three the municipalities of Teteven, of rule-making.the andmight outcomes process shapethe particularities These are that municipalities between and level local at interactions and situations life real other legalIn addition to and planning for grounds creating of new environmental rules are there (Ramboll 2007, 120). become in andwehave experts aregone consultants to the allbut be updated, areas.” to have programs the Now consultants. by external designed been have programmes the of “most is that updating with problem One investments. environmental justify new to need changes according updated the are to inEPPs RIEW. legislation to and reporting and the reviewed programs the during researchwith the exception of appointing aresponsiblein unit followed not are requirements general These implementation.” programme for public the and RIEW the informing council; Municipal the before implementation its of reporting of programmethe implementation; periodicity updatingfor of programmethe and the decisions andtake emergedprogress on problems; scheme for monitoring of progress the the on report to periodically summon will which Commission/Committee/Council, Thefull name – Environmental Protection Programmes: Guidelines for Structure and Content of EPPs. 102 CEU eTD Collection with big factories closed down, high unemployment, shrinking population – and social economy planning centralised and communism of fall the after municipalities Bulgarian atypical represents hand,Teteven On theother case of overallthe declinehit that city greenest award for the in Bulgaria inwith 40 citiesa contest 44 criteria. according to were similar.In July beauty of isnature overwhelming. receivedThe town in 2008 an mountain peaksaround Teteven were hidden in clouds and fogs my personal impressions have remainedBulgaria.”mother Even during foreigner a winter to time when the Bulgarian literature Vasovexclaimed Ivan IwouldTeteven, alsocome to ‘IfIhadnot ifa Swiss resort measureonlyto up beauty isnature of The patriarch the compared. accidentalithad been with atwinning that connected Swiss municipality. Teteven could of Bulgaria”isgreen town slogan not readsthe It the Teteven. – of town the ”Teteven beautifulof an area in landscapes – mountains, rivers, valleys,situated and is deepforests high peaks. municipality The Ribaritsa. resort the with famous is it Bulgaria In standards. Bulgarian the to according municipality medium-size rural a is municipality Teteven are they developed –rule-making (how). how (what), rules the are what (who), involved is who – municipalities Bulgarian in rules environmental the and govenrnance environmental about thesis the of question research The main of study caseTeteven municipality goalsthe of are derived from mainthe 5.1. Introduction to the case municipality of Teteven study V. Case 103 CEU eTD Collection sparsely populated - about two times lesstwo than about sparselyaverage. municipality The country - populated is well comparatively is It 31000). below well fall will median the cities, biggest the excluding if This centre). is less the than averagefor aBulgarian municipality – 31000inhabitants (but km.hassq. population It of 23919 inhabitants (11799for Teteven as administrative municipality Bulgarianin -http://teteven.bg/index.php?mod=category&id=12. 20 semi-mountainous and mountainous mostly is relief variesterritory almost from m 340 to 2200m with highestthe peakVezen – 2198m. The is part It parts. Southern of and Northern Lovech into Bulgaria dividing Balkan) also (called regionmountain the Mountain, Planina (oblast). Stara Central in situated municipality rural mountainous a is ItTeteven spreads Overall5.2.1. descriptionalong Vit river valleyTeteven asacaseofBulgarian 5.2. municipality and the altitude of its environmental rules and environmental local governance at level. the chapterrule-making with theirprocesses main tendencies and practices. As a concludingof part I willenvironmentalemerged during fieldrules the that As research. a nextI will discuss the main and governance discuss environmental in local actors the examine will I then and problems, and resources environmental its and themunicipality the sketch will I chapter following the factorsIn exceptions, of thecontributing bigger ones, too. few with and, in Bulgaria, municipalities medium-sized and small the of most for case tocapital and limited administrative Such is capacity actors. of local the andauthorities other emergence and dynamics of The The Municipal Development Plan2007-2013, available at the official homepage of the Teteven 20 . The area of the municipality is 697 is municipality the of area The . 104 CEU eTD Collection importance (estimated80 000night’s lodgings forInterview 2009, favourable T02)The national of resort a is Ribaritsa - them of One people). 500 than less with villages the cultural municipality of the centre villagesand 12 relatively are that poorly (5of populated The municipality hasof as administrative,Teteven 13settlements town –the industrial and tourism in a much cleaner environment. hand, increased), other the on itnewopened for opportunities development– mostly declined population (the Teteven by more than 6000 people, unemployment the economic recent of andsocial changes leftnegative mark and hithard people of the turmoil the clearly hand, one On scenery. unpleasant its with quarter industrial the is sight in first comes What river. the along whichstretches Teteven of town the into driving while andindustrial likeplots ugly shadows of past glory. Onecould seethis past devastated buildings factory of skeletons behind leaving decline into went industry local competition collapsethe Aftersocialist of planning economy and of underpressure international Elprom employednow with (e.g. 1300workers, workers 1000 over 80 - Interview T06). with them of two factories, big few with – times socialist the in industrialised was town The movements. andrevolutionary revival national the of strongholds the of one became town in the Ottoman Empire.markedby developmentin thehandicrafts by granting supported of a special of statute The city was burned down in 1801 but soon revived and The history middleTeteven of back dates to of 15 Sofia. from km. capitalnear the located Sofia and Hemus the highway 124 about from Varna at Sofia to th. Century. 16 th and 17 th centuries were 105 CEU eTD Collection the respondents whohanded respondents the me in paper copies of documents. homepage the of documents wasthrough municipalitythe access to and withof support municipalthe ordinances municipal and other ascasesof environmentalacts rules. The (EPP); programme protection environmental plan, development municipal – documents snowball interviews.I had16 haveeffect).In total I alsoreviewed main the strategic by directed firstnewthe interviewees people (from NGOs, activethe to citizens) (the length from at theirof viewpoint problematique the of environmental governance. Iwas a whole the respondents were open-minded and willingspend time to with me discussing environmentalthe fine-tune about questions research the to rulesor for this case. Taken as data additional collect to findings, preliminary some confirm and test to interviews some environmental the duplicatedunit I Later and head the of EU integration and projects). some with casesIhadfollow-up key correspondence intervieweeswith head the of (e.g. In activists. local with and NGOs local with council, municipal administration, municipal December inand second one 2009 July the 2010. Ihad interviews with key informants at in was trip field first The time. each days few a for twice municipality the visited I municipality. the of stagnation and crisis of times in policy investment and situation financial the of improving to contribute and projects funded under Operational - EnvironmentPrograms (OP) and Regional Developmentare - management water and waste in mostly – investments public local The Euro). mil. 5.6 The budget4). Teteven, of municipalitythe (MDP for 2010is over 11mil. BGN(around advantagesare among especially importantstrategic the in tourism to developmentregard geographic location ofthemunicipality map(see the in Figure links 2)and transport good 106 CEU eTD Collection walk,pickberries, herbs natural andreserves “Boatin” mushrooms. two and Thereare offerpleasantenvironment The forests for tourism a and where onecould recreation take and traditions with high living heritage standard”. historical rich mountain, the of nature marvellous the combining centre, cultural has“Teteven and is becometouristic Teteven of European to that Program Protection in Environmental expressed municipality the about vision The tourism. of development among andhaveprecious its natural mostresources been recognized for their potential for are They abound. mountains high and air clean rivers, forests, municipality Teteven In Environmental 5.2.2. resources and problems TheSource: Environmental Protection Program of Teteven municipality Figure 2Mapof Bulgaria with the location of Teteven highlighted. 107 CEU eTD Collection and of tooth brushes. interviews The and andtooth of municipal the confirmdocuments declinethe of logging and processing, of production furniture and office equipment, of microengines is in declineThe main 12). in Teteven, thelastyears industrial (EPP activities are wood it because industry the extent some to only and farming and households - Teteven of town in the situated are polluters main The industry. heavy no is there municipality Teteven In andforestry, agriculture economy 47). Teteven, (MDP requires policy protection whichit. Its havepractices to integrates become threats agriculture new forests, and land the of privatization decentralization, the but municipality inthe rich is biodiversity The municipality. the of centre touristic the Ribaritsa, in National “Central Park Balkan” the of section largest the spreads also municipality Teteven In Bulgaria. of northernmost established becauseitis only the habitatof white fir Planinain Stara Mountain and in the age 100 years)and (average years)(average age160 spruce Tsaritchina forests. reserve is reserveisBiosphere”. becauseof presenceThe Boatin of the venerable created beech reserves are includedBoth programmeEPP. in “Human theUNESCO according to and areas important ornithological for International Birdlife of list the in included were Tsaritchina declared natural were reserves respectively in 1948 and 1949,andin 1989 (http://www.centralbalkannationalpark.org/en/index.phtml). historical sites of global cultural scientific and significance.” endangered wildlife species communities,and self-regulating ecosystems of biological diversity, aswell as Bulgaria, nestled in the central and higher portions of the Balkan Range. The Park contains rareand heritage of this area andprotect thecustoms and livelihood of the local population.It lies in the heart of 21 Balkan –bufferand Vasiliovska planina) biodiversity.the designatedprotect to Bo underNATURA areas “Tsaritchina”,2000 (Central Balkan,protected three Central “The Central Balkan National Parkwas established in 1991 to conserve the unique natural scenery and 21 The information region Teteven is parkfor the of centre ɚ tin and 108 CEU eTD Collection logging of forests within or beyond legitimate use does not bring sufficient income to the to income sufficient bring not does use legitimate beyond or within forests of logging traditional The fields. pasture clearing for shepherds by intentionally allegedly caused fires Another problemmentioned not highlighted inbut EPP in the interviews forest arethe practices. agricultural and waste industrial fires, periodical by polluted also are soils The isGlogovo underway. ininfrastructure and Teteven in thebiggestvillages Glojene, Galata, Gradeznitsa and cycle) management conduits andwater for(of water wastewater water project this a situation. to large However alsoThe tourism contributes integrated tanks. water and gullies rivers, the into flow households and farms industry, the from wastewaters facilities treatment is urban wastewater there no inand the villages the town upstream insituation in Teteven, Ribaritsa,and in national all the resort settlements. Because other the is This systems. filtering old by purifies are places some at only and river the into One shocking 60). lengthTeteven, fact (MDPisall floating are that wastewaters directly management water sewagesystem - the the in onlycovers Teteven projected the 11 %of problemsbe solved need to locally. One of them is the underdeveloped infrastructure of actions deadlinesand forimplementation expectedand results. council agovernance programme for period the of the mandate which contains the main goals, priorities, 22 programme fires.The municipality leadership problems isof these aware and the governance against wood protection sewage system, management, protection, waste and water forest environmentalThe real problems of municipality cleanthe are accessto water, potable economyandfor newbusinesses asan opportunity as athreat and cleaner environment. According to Art.45, par.5of the LLSLA the Mayor of the municipality submits to the municipal 22 of mayor the them of has(Interview addressed T01)because most of the 109 CEU eTD Collection bought people many and plotsdrastically up went ofRibaritsa in agriculturalespecially property, of prices the moment land to build a summerlanduse changetensions about because of potential negative environmental effects. Ata house. As one of the NGO development The tourism and private of interests land inactivists owners recentyearsthe led to municipality. the outside sources with pollution municipalities, neighbouring the with dialogue of lack municipalities; larger increased to turned migration and interests of state the donors the process, problemsthese To following areaddedthe dependence threats: on central authorities, environmental protection: The EPP lists in the SWOT analysis (p.71) the most pressing problems and weak sides of price. marketthe by illegal surpriseno logging. onecouldto buy So, a cubicliving meter of firewood welltheir undermake some villages, the in especially unemployed, and poor is there population the of part Since villages. in small factor subsistence a still is it although anymore people x x x x x x There is no urban wastewater treatment facility. treatment There isurban nowastewater The existing landfill reaches its capacity; The flow of the wastewaters in the rivers; territory of the municipality and there is no such municipal one; whole the cover not could control and monitoring for system national The Irrational utilization natural of the resources; Lack of sufficientfinancial resources; 110 CEU eTD Collection unstable situation compared to Dobrich (the mayor in her second mandate) or in Lukovit in or mandate) second her in mayor (the Dobrich to compared situation unstable of terms office had different Teteven three mayors from differentpolitical a parties, more He is by supported GERB –the ruling party in Bulgaria since June 2009.In the last three term. first his in 2007 in elections the won who Pavlov Nikolay is Teteven of mayor The skills….” (Interview T01). platform.In ithe clearly declares,what heis pursuing. Every mayor usesleadership electionsthe and managing municipality. the winning “Everyfor be mayor elected needsto in vital a order are priorities His/her problem. every solve to competent and with charge in is mayor that presume People municipality. medium-size or small in a so more even and municipality, a of life community and government local in figure central is mayor Every The Mayor Local actors5.3. beas asolution considered to (Interview T10). would map NATURA 2000areaand areasdesignated the was for construction suggested that municipality the for plan A master project. development the of assessment impact becauselands mostoccur in arelocated NATURA 2000areasand requires the procedure facilities and in addition they thelandscapeexercise on pressure village. of the Conflicts (no sidewalks), infrastructure environmentroad nowastewater isbecause proper there no going isSuch there hugedevelopments (Interview on” construction T05). to are threat hotels] because and houses private new [of many development is the Ribaritsa of mainproblem “The it put has lots on agricultural land were bought, its status was changed and 111 CEU eTD Collection specialist.The unit and in financingprojects EU integration, charge of EU has three unit, headof the chiefenvironmentalthe one - specialistprotection senior andone in involved directly them of 3 people, 4 with Sport and Activities Youth Environment, Tourism, called is environment with deals which unit The job. their of importance and intensity high the witnessed I trips field the During units. legal and EU environmental, units. The threehas 68 employeesIt people. under mayorthe assisted by a deputy mayor and heads of 24000 about of community a unitsgoverns administration municipal Teteven field. policy every closely relatedIn addition thereisconstant. dynamicchange and constant in scopeand volume of rules in to environmentalby staff and capacity problems. The salaries highare not and the working constrained pressure thus and administrations multi-task are governments municipal Bulgarian The rulesThe municipal administration and rule-making implementation. are the cycle water integrated for inprojects Glojene, Teteven, Glogovo and Galata are under Currently campaign. election his in outlined priorities the among are facilities treatment landfill, sewage systemof allfor settlements in municipalitythe regional of and of wastewater construction The leader. a as him in trust her and invitation personal his of councillors. municipalOne of these councillors theposition claimed shebecause took that a way to fix it.does streetpost not work) and visit him, he goes with youthe to responsibleMr. expert find to Pavlovproblems.As one of his employee explainedis it if you have a problem (e.g. therespected lamp of your community the about care and vision with powerful, and resolute consistent, very equallyinterviewees(in his Most him presentmandate). third as a natural leader andmanager - by his employees and by municipal 112 CEU eTD Collection revision was approved at a second session. a second revision at wasapproved firstwas rejecteddraft because it ascopiedlooked from andonly source another after administration asin casewith the of draftEnvironmentalthe Programme. The Protection municipal of drafts the on deliberates and only reviews but initiatives carry not does The them” commission (Interview T04). initiate supports not for change,rather options does It commission. the on depends Nothing council. municipal of work serious the from aside bit a stands commission “This explained: commission the of members the of One priorities. its follows and leadership municipal the on work the all for relies commission role andhad hadonlysessions two in 2009accordinghim. to Heclaimedveto or that the corrective plays commission The doctor. veterinarian a is commission environment commissionthe and environment and tourism for commission the – protection environmental for with 9permanentparties commissions. them of have Two as a subject matter agriculture,political 5 representing councillors municipal 21 has inTeteven council municipal The Municipal council forests andhave many contacts”. waters.from consultancies sincehim according to with “[he] offers work many prefers to job people and to despite position municipal his kept He Theadministration. the at years 7 for working chairmanwas previously who person environmentalthe municipality. of the expert Hehas been of theIndeed its memberspeople”. all are young and areled by a dynamic and resourceful tourism headthe unit of the unitsAccordingthese to arecalled experts. “the units with youngthe and 113 CEU eTD Collection international donor support and now diminishing in importance because of the new the of because in importance diminishing now and support donor international riseNGO presents the and fall of most NGOsin Bulgaria set upin 1990s the with the of history The Teteven. of program protection environmental previous the drafted executive municipal wasthe Its director Cooperation. and environmental who expert forumlocal for governance in Bulgaria financed by Swissthe a Agency as for Development in 2000 established was CSDMT governance. in local environmental, including rules, MunicipalityTeteven which (CSDMT) innovativeintroduced and practices consequently Such anexample separately projects. on is theCentre for Sustainable Developmentof or municipality the with work to structure influential up built had NGO local some ago time long Not implementation. rules’ and process rule-making governance, environmental broadly The local civil the NGOs represent society and its engagement in local NGOs asanexception has rather mobilisedtherefore council. the and landfilling for taxes waste with obligations financial imposed and municipality issue The councillors demanded T09). (Interview present” were long-term commitmentof decisionthe and by was taken municipal council. Citizens was debate. There and state the of [RIEW] representatives with session and council municipal ofthe at a partnerdiscussion public open was with experience in the because bargaining of the especially process, behalfissue.on of municipality.Teteven „There The options wereheldwere inThe deadline Teteven. establishment for the presented of landfillthe was postponed association, the of members municipalities, all with consultations public Two association. landfill regional about discussions in the active more was council municipal The 114 CEU eTD Collection to the beginningthe to of Century.20th. The NGOwas established in 1996 by 13-14 people municipality the of centre andtouristic recreation with nationwide dating back reputation, local activities.focus and Ribaritsa is a villagewith 12km. from andTeteven NGO mostfamous the grassroots a is Ribaritsa from (environment) “Priroda” - NGO local next The (Interview entities” parasite are NGOs that attitude an cultivated is community the in And business… their of on support the municipalitycope withoutNGOs] own could not and local be implemented to isprojects are andthere money, they exists NGOs],“…they [the [the there “Until interviewee: one by captured well NGOs all of sustainability of problem the is theirnew conditionsbeneficiaries) for slowly it disappeared from scene. the In general this accession money EU the after flows changedOperational (the paths its withPrograms criteria for funding, municipal hadthe centre the and wasinfluential. support Then the when met and Agency) Swiss case this (in donors from money attracted it Until municipality. a of landscape governance in the implanted institution an of story typical a is This of its offices weresealed andonly working. person one which landfill themunicipality commissionedfacilitate.regional to In December Centre the the doors 2009the of construction the about forum discussion the was projects big last its 10 in– from people2 in2006 (Interview 2000upto T07) when it wasat its peak. One of informationfor capacity Centre speakalsothe the of services). numbersFor the of its staff yearsthe 2000-2008in partnershipin with municipalitythe forprojects establishment(e.g. big of centre managed It consultancies. of competition and conditions social and financial Ɍ 07). 115 CEU eTD Collection programme “School inthe wild nature” (EPP Teteven,23). room for25 people, exhibitionroom, library rich videoand take. Itoffers conference touristic information modern runs a and has It Park. ofthe Directorate the and Corps Peace of the support the with “Priroda” 23 alsoprojects withoutthere 2010. for followed and“Priroda” wasalsopractically byclosed down endthe of 2009 when I was BulgarianUnion,travel agencies, years Tourist good NGOs.Afteradecline these users –husbandries,forest andelectricity police,water companies, fireand the brigades, the institutions all of involvement stakeholders’ for example good a - Bulgaria in territory real on management husbandry for plan multifunctional first the developed NGO The childrentimes local Atthe school. 5-6000 visited centreand the stayed for aday more. or information centre from The projects. NGO establishedPriroda’s places of interestwere outputs an and of The first catalogues river. brochures Ribaritsathe handicrafts, about tourism and communityof andbecame centre projects a life. first The cleaning-upwas about project of firstdrafted the “Priroda” period of the 1996-2004 NGO.In projects the implemented as publiccollectseparately engagement, to garbagethe and develop to eco-tourism. He environment the protect to people local teaching with years first in the NGO the to helped son-in-law,Her avolunteer first director. was the from PeaceCorps, the daughter Her Sabeva. history Mrs.Tsanka a personal of intoits director turned ofthis history The NGO MoEW. the for time that at working Spiridonov Geko expert biodiversity prominent a by from differentwalksThey of lifeetc. were encouraged economists, foresters, –teachers, The environmental The information educationaland centre “Ribaritsa” was set up by the local society 23 for the National National training with for the Park and trained teachersfrom room 116 CEU eTD Collection trainings and capacity building, and mediating conflict situations like the establishment of establishment the like situations conflict mediating and building, capacity and trainings providing institution important an as inTeteven municipal experts by the recognized been has (NAMRB) Bulgaria of in Republic Municipalities of Association National The NAMRB are involved indirectly in localthe rule-making processes. associations these of Two experts. municipal local of building capacity like municipality national at andlevel experts with relevanceat the governance processes the to municipalities of associations are there NGOs environmental national and local the Beside National associations has built an Adventure park and has sublet it professional to company manageto it. help acquireto them skillsto in for going mountains out the (Interview The NGO T09). campaigns like backin “The waste backpack”the and with worked disadvantaged childrenorganized has NGO Her protection. environmental and life community to contribute to NGO the with work her to compared important that not is councillor municipal as position somethem of with only the apply to goal trustees, She hersharedfor projects. that least in60 NGOregistered municipality Teteven are at – business, school of board there her to According commission. environmental the of member councillor, municipal NGO“Movementone for walking tourism Tsaritchina”. is She anda an attorney-at-law Stillall not of NGOs in areextinctin Teteven such away.I have interviewed leader the of 117 CEU eTD Collection written down anywhere”. down written share their least experience ayearonce meetat issues to and“talk not are that about communication amonghave and who similar people coordination problems of and could platform and model a as association the praised He BAMEE. of member still is expert, andintegration unit, being projects EU The headof ends.the a former environmental annual theirmeetings at practices these everyday through also to or contributes contacts networking its of members and theirprofessional development. the The exchange of good supports (BAMEE) experts environmental municipal of association Bulgarian The BAMEE establishment of an association municipalof EU inexperts Bulgaria. associations EUfunds of the After experts. study the visitin the 2009 NAMRB supported MarianMr. Alexiev. inThe practice areprofessional UK there that showed national unit integration and projects EU of head the was experts these of One funds. EU about experts. It facilitated a nationwide selection of experts for astudy visit UK train to to them municipal of experience the of widening to way in another contributed has NAMRB The recommendations on the law drafts through the NAMRBand the MoEW.to comments provide to able also are municipalities The T02). (Interview informhalf to us in practice a year the they introduced case of serious law amendments” Since building. capacity for and trainings with us help they often Very municipalities. the “Many ministrythe meetings organized at were by [MoEW] Nationalthe Association of regional landfill association because disagreements of the member municipalities had. 118 CEU eTD Collection regulations. Asaformal environmental rule coveringof ithas scope most the abroad concluding and provisional with concludes ordinance The sanctions. administrative managementwaste chapter is about forth and fifth the and control regulates the including green systemthe of of parks, gardens, green areas and decorative vegetation; the maintenance regulates The thirdchapter of cleanprotection. and aesthetic settlements, biodiversity and protection soil bodies, water and rivers water, drinking of protection ofenvironmentalprotection withclean subchapters:components about air and noise; of ordinancethe The first containschapter general provisions, –rules second chapter the pollution. inwas adopted It Aprilnoise 2005 and amended twice: in against May 2008 and March 2010. protection and soil and water air, biodiversity, - components environmental only Teteven has such a codified version by addingitsof the usual protection the to scope municipality case all From municipalities. in most separated are usually which management waste and maintenance cleanliness protection, environmental of subjects main the codifies cleanliness keeping managementand waste of Municipality.Teteven territory the at It protection, environmental on Ordinance - ordinance in one rules all environmental in theordinances arecombined with sanctions. municipality Teteven has collect chosen to management waste on (and only recently – one a thirdon green system). formal The rules environmental oneon general the are (and cleanliness protection public or and one order) municipalities Bulgarian by rules environmental legal as adopted ordinances main two The Formal5.4.1. rules 5.4. Main environmental rules 119 CEU eTD Collection and what notbut nota sanctioning means and serious source in municipal budget. inform sum, sanctions to the aremoreaprecautionary of nature people whatis allowed In municipality. the of behalf on fines the collect to slow very are collectors public and low warnings and talking to themagainsthis/her neighbour) municipal the or servants prefer presentingrather the offenders with writing a finebecause evidencesconvincingthe either arenot resort (almost nobody would testify on last a as the imposed are spot.sanctions the municipality Therural finesDobrich to similarly interviewees ifthe imposed are againstoffendersthe statements of ordinances.the up and As draw itwas made clear from imposition of fines at the municipalities. In Teteven eco inspectors are employed control to should figuresthese It that betraditionally noted %. 55 aredueto andweak control is in allcase municipalities. other isit tax collected The householdbetween waste 20 %andas low very is collection fine of rate the expert environmental municipal a to According violations. of nature the account into take not does which approach againwere increased1000 BGNbut with –from 300 to the same undifferentiated Only with thenewamendments sanctions from the infringementsMarch 2010 for repeated illegalfor bodies or in water the into the bufferconstruction zones of natural reserves. 500 BGN(app.from e.g.for illegal 250EUR) from25 to to 50 disposal of wastewaters infringementsfor weakness isAnother that of different scale same fines areimposed – prescriptions. detailed few with superficial are norms Some enforce. and implement environmentalIn reality and components factors. itiswhich adocument is easy not to 120 CEU eTD Collection programmes. It states the following objectives: following the states It programmes. andshould comply with guidance the of of such andMoEW for structure content of Environmental para.1 in79, is with Act Art. The EPP prepared accordance Protection Environmental Protection Programme plan. anaction appendix an haveas Both documents. planning environmental two the are 2012 andwith wastemanagement period 2009-2012 covers the program for theperiod 2008- like documents other intotransferred environmental into EPP The program. protection given followed by findings and problemsbe addressed. to and Some data conclusions are ambienteach heading overview soils,(e.g. of main ashort air,the waters, waste) facts is Under components). environmental of status and resources, and conditions environmental on 1.5. point (in environment with parts analytical and descriptive its in deals The Municipal DevelopmentPlan for period the 2007-2013is a planning documentthat Municipal Development Plan protection. environmental in municipality Teteven of plan working and activities objectives, the externalise and administration the mostly bind followingIn the therewill section main the be presented asrules documents strategic that Strategic documents5.4.2. 121 CEU eTD Collection in places not relevant, document (e.g. on the history of the town andTeteven) the history with town on of the in tables placesrelevant,(e.g. document not details and data with burdened technical, extremely an is It meaning. the finding difficulties community containsThe program of butbackground information alot almost about every aspect of the presented in a thinking. of heavy models and approaches new in – informal and formal – administrative level local at actors all of cooperation of forms possible of and conditions styleandpoints6. There is 4 discussion noproper of facts and analysis of backgroundthe so that readersin there asufficient way.them Some of are “empty shells” (Dimitrovaespecially 2010), wouldreflected not are or inrelate program of the realitynot goals content do the The stated to have 6. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. structures at the municipality.the at structures informal and formal all of thinking modern new protection, environmental to boost problems; priority solving for them allocating by the resources human and financial limited the optimally use to establishmentproblems; the solving for municipality the in industry the and NGO population, the institutions, state authorities, municipal of efforts the combine to development; tourism for specifically more and potential of economic of development for municipality the of new resources natural the utilize to valuepointto the priorities out in the specific areas; system,them; overcoming municipality, solutions causes the and and propose detect activities to new for approachidentify to analyzeand environmental the problemsof the territory atthe to the 122 CEU eTD Collection characteristics is followedby onlyof 64 pagesdirectly 20 out about waste related to economic and social-demographic administrative-territorial, geographic, – municipality investments”(WMPThe lengthy2). 2008, introduction with general description of the utilization, increasedresource responsibilities of polluters andfostering management waste environmentalthe of improvementimpacts waste, generated of of effectivenessthe of the municipality integrated frameworkthrough management forwaste leadsreduction that to mainthe to aimrelated not – “sustainableof program the development of Teteven the an administrative documentwith overburdening background information section and data shares same but the beforeEPP characteristics the and deficiencies.was adopted 2012 is It The Waste ManagementProgramme (WMP) of Teteven municipality periodfor 2008- the ProgramWaste Management ensure follow-up.projects to on-going or finalized of list a or NGOs local active of list no is There activities. landfill regional with inconnection only mentioned is NGOs of and public the of engagement The participation. public on part the in even authority, responsible the is administration municipal the them of all for and program the of analysis the in identified problems 10types are of there program activitiesthe Plan Action In the to looselythe to referred inhas noactors financialthis It respect. with andestimatedpart of funding. sources costs of performance and conditions environmental of improvement to related they are how explanation without nature economic and social of are problems identified the of Most achieved. be could goals main the of some how on nothing almost but situation existing the analysis of section, information a bulky background contains It discern. to hard 123 CEU eTD Collection implementation of the standard. According to him it takes a lot of his time and creates and time his of lot a takes it him to According standard. the of implementation system. environmentalThe headof unitchairs committee the supervises that the management environmental integrated 14001 ISO with certified is municipality The ISO 14001 fieldthe research in anycome had across 2010 I August not amendments. The energy efficiency programme is inUntil place be it updated. butneeds to the end of participation the citizensof the in management. of waste process the campaigns, ofalist preparation of interested and partners organizations, and regulation of media to administration municipal the of supervision the under reduced are measures of interests all participants in management. waste hand,in other On the action planthe the the balancing and measures of implementation decisions, right the taking for critical as in WMP considered is participation public The problem. the addresses that provision no is there but ishighlighted program protection soil of lack the WMP and EPP the both In dumps. illegal of emergence the prevent to work will administration municipal that it from isThere only serious T02). (Interview a generalany without statement measures following still was problem this 2009 In plan. action in the nor program the in way proper a in addressed not are dumps illegal like section background the in mentioned problems Some involved. allocated andactors resources be taken, to steps elaboration concrete the on analysis. or any data referconcrete to They listedare just inany endthe without further management.general Some main and donot objectives strategic are too program of the 124 CEU eTD Collection According to Art. 73 of the environmental ordinance of Teteven the implementation is implementation the Teteven of ordinance environmental the of 73 Art. to According offenders the environmentalhow of rules - ordinances are warned orsanctioned. formal of implementation the of rules informal of host a represents enforcement rule The Rule enforcement 5.4.3. more supportive. firstscepticaltrainingsat after but andexperiencing relief in their load they work became his/hera citizendown could track application viaMunicipal Internet. servants used be to information flow tothe competent experts and unloads the rest of the administration. Now informationThe information (from 2003). centre channelscentre of least80 % at and system exchange information existing already into integrated and upon built aredriver trainingstandards for andcarrier development of municipal servants. They are apply for projects they municipalitythe standards representthese municipality that suggested askwell. “…when we is there ISO - something – on occupational 18001:2002 OHSAShealth BSI and safety The standard. secretary of with and system management European.quality 9001:2000 ISO with also certified is Thismunicipality The T08). is (Interview European.” chaotic” bit little a is “it so important, and Theurgent more is else something when deadlines, and crises its with life everyday of turmoil the in much so municipalAnother officialnot areperfectbut procedures paper the on was concerned that reminderscouldget deadlines about anddocuments thatshould about be prepared. andcoordination systematization and operations of the services, e.g.municipal experts follow-up and control. However,decisions, he pointedmeetings, out also the someof positiveminutes outcomesmeetings, – better committee month every - work paper 125 CEU eTD Collection announcements from administrationthe are managed by environmentalthe unit. public and council municipal to reports and information all but authority or person appointa responsible management not waste LLC.TheEPP does servicesEco-Titan – implementation mayor the managerandare the for program of the of mainthe of contractor responsible authorities the programme management waste the In (Art.76). municipality fire brigadeor officers. The punitive decreesareissued only by mayorthe of the municipal to delegated officials of mayor, by the order mayors of mayoralties,police to or is rules the of violation the ascertain to right The (Art.73). instructions and orders mayoralties personsappointedthe or by them They of (Art.72). could issue inmayors this regard mayor, the in vested is implementation of control the ordinance protection environmental the In administration. municipal of role governance dominating the about will A simpleactors be compared. overview shows theelsewhere confirmed conclusion different to powers allocating provisions the rules on discussion the of conclusion In 5.4.4. Actors in rules explanation. as given municipality was in the development tourism support to municipality of policy the second the In cause. a as mentioned firstIn the case politicalandT05). (Interviews T07 and economic interests were some economic that so subjects areunder“special allsanctionedregime” at not or intervieweesimposed.Two certain a tendency pointed at favourcompanies andprotect to is fine a it with comply not does offender ifthe Only issued. is actions prescribed for deadline with warning official an First practice. following the presented interviewees The ensured through orders and instructions issued by the mayor or mayors of the mayoralties. 126 CEU eTD Collection Rule-making powers meetings and everything all started again.over eitherhadhim ignored young, a“boy”, as too sentdeputy mayors, or next to then experts seriously,they itname younot but approached it, with exception the mayor.”of They our effortsconvince to them in about the landfill.years 4 spent He “I presented them 2003. in with as printouts,early presentations, as landfill regional a establish to region the of mayors in was told a I Teteven younga story environmentalto persuade to attempted expert andTeteven municipalities the 2008-2009. in theregion are not an exception. According in forward moved municipalities aid consultancy financial considerable by backed and EU towards obligations the fulfil to authorities national of pressure the under Only innovative. than actions and visions in their traditionalistic more still are governments local Bulgarian Traditionalism a session at council.of the voting to is it submitted then and it approve to needs environment on commission the First council. municipal at it files he and administration of head the as mayor the from comes rule new the for proposal the Officially council. municipal and mayor the to approval for it amendment rulethe draft (e.g. The experts in ordinance a new or programme) and submit council).Within asin theadministrative rules move bottom-up case of Teteven. structure municipal and (mayor decision-makers local by approved and legal) and (environmental The environmental predominatelyrules areproduced by local municipal experts 5.5. Rule-making process 127 CEU eTD Collection years (out of 4)administrationcommunity. and As mentioned by intervieweesthe three for it upto could take a new mayor newoften staff.He/she needs considerable intotime governingof amount the get to of the to get the picturenew mayoris he/she electedimpose could a new leadership style, new policy priorities and in details electionthe cycleaffects efficiency that municipalof management. Every four years if is a implementation andpolicy and decision-making of fields all by affecting problem thatcommon One time newLeadership environmentalthe programme has expiredprotection then a new should one bedrafted. them becauseget money “it If is never” to T01). (Interview a project or prepared now is EU there If T02). (Interview it about done is something municipality the to obligations instanceifFor is there lawanimalon management) (e.g. waste or anddelegated protection funding. 24 communitythe sewage pipelines) personal (cleanthe water, decisions to or of mayorthe demands to andas aresponse obligations from national objectivethe level needs to of or – field in the experts - team his and mayor the by set is agenda The authorities. municipal draftingEIA, (e.g. andprograms of ordinances), informal or are predisposed in favour of issues.these The disproportional in powers decision-making either procedures, formal and NGOsunder given the conditions arepassive in this a strong stand without respect on municipal council.Theirdominance is enhanced byand leadershipthe of mayor.the The public administration municipal within vested are resources and powers decision-making The analysis of the actors involved in rule-making shows strong and weak players. The The mayorThe is anenthusiastic sportsman the sport and centre in the town got priority targetedand 128 24 . CEU eTD Collection commission to be summoned for two sessions. commissionbe summonedtwo for to programnew the of discussion The councillors. municipal by waspraised and council municipal by the only occasiongiveand did not full information issues onthe it discussed”. The second draft wasadopted for chairmanthe According ofthecommission to the the firstdraft was“copied from somewhere revised. be to whole had it and council municipal of commission environmental the by year rejected was municipality forof team environmental of members the two by prepared draft first tourism The and The draftingis a newEPP acase of of rule-making. place inenvironmenttook in Itstages two 2009. Local administrative “centralism” 10 years. maintain andbuild achievements the upon with NGOs of of lastcooperation the than more to leadership and interest strong showed not has part its on municipal administration The representatives. NGOs some to according rapidly diminished society civil with cooperation During years three of the newthe of mandate the mayor (2007-2009) the proactive despiteitscapacity expert withand yearsmunicipal cooperation of good administration. The Sustainability external andactors. the of Teteven Centre was practically closed leadershipThe andadministrative style of mayorthe affects also rule-makingthe processes needed [for the mayor]know getto to [what is going on].” (Interview T08). this“Iobserve he iswhat already going” T01). (Interview a thirdyears mandate. Two are and ball, changesthe andknow hisahalfget 3years, two are to least, team, to there at “[E]very The intervieweesthat: mayor, elections when out pointed approach. he comes 129 CEU eTD Collection consultations itremains and itpaper on is hardly enforceable. The ordinance T03). wasdrafted because law the demands it butwithout broad (Interview time next the until it solve and them cleaning for pays municipality the – dumps illegal the with problem a is there – policy of accumulation no is there way a such In problem/crises management systematicthan solve rather environmentalto effort problems. experiencesconfined butadministrative and to routines deadlines.resembles procedures, It because itdidbuild not discussions upon with ordinary people about their problems and as a working one.” (Interview T03). The rule-making process was notcommunity oriented communicated,well if viewsthe of peopleconsidered,not arenot we couldis imposeif it it much harder grounded, well not is it -“If rule-making participatory poor of shortcomings The rule-making ordinancesthe isof in samethe vein. Oneinterviewee summarized the unit. environmental the of room in the request at or homepage municipal on online possible was and hencelegal no requirementfor public finalthe participation. accessto The document municipalthisnecessary is because that not subject the program was not SEA experts to public hearingany or kind of public discussion was initiated because RIEW advised was submittedprogram The draft forcomments onlyandRIEW No Basin to Directorate. environment of localandthe status annual the meteorological about station temperatures. the on RIEW of reports annual the commission, use land municipal the Institute, Statistical information of The sources previous regional program. arethe bureau of the National applies EPP of the guidelinesThe structure of arebased SomeMoEW. parts on the 130 CEU eTD Collection existing administrative rule-making model. New provisions regulating the collection, the regulating provisions New model. rule-making administrative existing the represent ordinance environmental inthe 2010 March from amendments last The happens from this review but the act of adopting it.” issues and usuallyfrom farthese voluminous councillors are The years. last in the nothing becauseread it subject the say “…ifisthey not do verythat to not specialized and lawyer, municipal a to according superficially, review the do commissions The it. consider commissions relevant the There council. municipal the to submitted is draft first final the and checked matter by a lawyer.After including bycorrections units or of proposals other administrativeisThe draft prepared by procedure. unitthe responsible for subject the aclosed of pattern same the follows ordinances municipal of rule-making The administration. municipal the by dominated are Teteven in procedures rule-making The Closed rule-making system of its implementationassess progress progress. have an indicative not environmentaldoes program with part indicatorsprotection to and howthey are assessed and measured instance For -Interviews T03andT08). the interviews lackassessment for of theirof impacts (of their of their scope, effects - whether going (InterviewThe municipal on” T03). ordinances and programs were criticised in the implement, samethe financeat time youreport and lose thereal understanding whatis “If processes. youallow on-going real assessmentadministrationthe of not does the of hands the in responsibilities of concentration The administration. municipal by controlled is also stage this and implementation rules’ to related is Rule-making 131 CEU eTD Collection because they because neither they possess palpable nor any features directrelevancetheir everyday to labelthe of public participation.The ordinary these relatedocuments to people could not The administrativedetermine that rule-making processes closed andformal are even under Weak civil society have for documents all this.” (Interview T01). isreplied,It fast,operative mode; agree. even yes– wedon’t no –weagree, we do not possibility a application,for we detailed issues, managementwas the the let and know they there when Later, priorities. their declared and decisions took council municipal could call them working meetings.Then mayor the and the deputy-mayor and the beginningthe “At thestaff.of of term of the mayorthe few were there meetings; one closed decision-making. strategic Many importantdecisions are taken at working meetings extent larger a to explain also rules informal and system administrative municipal The in one moment that nobody cares. But this is fatal for any enterprise. “(Interview T03). some kind it effectively,of program the does does work program.work, But itturns out years,the because administration the throughout in a timeframe of 4 years should pass policy-making short-sighted of type that from comes programme municipal current of problem “The - EPP the with same The public. the with discussion without passed were hearingany initiativeor of wider amendmentsthe stakeholders, groups so to reach out to public about talk no was there 2009 December in Teteven visited I When municipality. communicatedwas not proposal The draftintroduced. formally at the homepage of use and disposal temporary storage, of masstransportation, widespread wastewere 132 CEU eTD Collection board, there was no interest. Noone showed up, nota single citizen. announcements cablethe municipalon at TV, homepage municipalthe andon notice mayora of mayoralty or the Despite areashowedup. in by areacovered the protected the citizen single a Not me. and TV cable local the expert, environmental municipal a of front (see RIEW from experts biodiversity Three municipality). of expert municipalcapacityon interest or makeside itreally to public alsoby (assuggested PR the interestin lackof the showcased specificthe of topic biodiversity and small the protection they However law. by the required formally not though even environment of minister municipality.These hearings, mostly of informative by were introduced new the character, “Vasilyovska area protected Planina” of which part falls the of in of the territory Teteven designation about hearing public the attended I municipality. of support local with by designating through the areaproceeded about RIEW MoEW and a new of protected even municipal officials interestshow in not discussion do was of rules. Theprocedure collaborativedecision-making. and The following example generalthe shows that public and consultations wider for prepared not or reluctant administration the is only Not collection separate of waste). about in campaigns (e.g. public the of involvement and rules of implementation about indicators finally success in governing environmental of the issues.clear Inaddition not are there and support social for chances big no are there T03) (Interview isinvolved” mayoralty local people from and samethe could attract place thespot on and only mayorthe of the are who NGOs by the not media, local the by informed is public the when implementation, life. As one interviewee pointed out rightly “if the NGO are not involved in the Figure 3 ) presented in) presented 133 CEU eTD Collection CSDTM (like in case of carrying out the public discussions about the regional landfill). regional the about discussions public the out carrying of case in (like CSDTM given as good examples (Interview T02). In the past the administration partnered also with Union,Tourist with NGOforthe walking tourism “Tsaritchina”, with were a scout group theirinitiatives with of support Bulgariantheir cooperation job”. as“part good The to and NGOs with work to willingness claimed have experts administration municipal The Sustainability Ribaritsa.andTeteven of “Priroda”, Centre least suchEnvironment, environmentalthe sustainNGOs could not and many have hibernated. At conclusionfrom and Withoutsupport T04). municipality as the largest beneficiary under OP manyvery more but than 50-60, that few paper, NGOs existon areactive (Interviews T02 has beencould find funding under new financing schemes and “feel isolated”. Another problem is drawn accession Afterpresent. EU withdrew donors these from Bulgaria and many NGOs hardly from theposition than now during pre-accession period when American and Swiss donors were storiescivilfor threat society when isit by represented localNGOs. The NGOs arein a weaker of twoBeside society’s lack ininterest of participating environmental on issues isthere another local NGOs– the 134 CEU eTD Collection Hierarchies industry. including actors, other of involvement little with level administrative at mostly happens process rule-making environmental that directly. choicefor the reason of businessesThe other approached isrespondents not were local at leveleconomicactors and limited time casestudy from for the respondents the of number small relatively the to Due activists. NGO and officials municipal with mostly were interviews The community). networks, on (e.g. interviews from gathered insights all on data research arrangementsthese wascollected.In some weremore casesthere andhierarchies, markets governance as communities.networks, of field course Inthe rule-makingin mind will beanalyze analysed. we have to accepted III Chapter In arrangements of local structural the environmental In this part governance with rules and 5.6. Governance and rule-making factors municipality Teteven Source: homepage. protection “Vasiliovska planina”.The Pleven. representatives of RIEW Figure 3Public presentation of the Minister’sorder fordesignating aprotectedarea for bird 135 CEU eTD Collection RIEW is also the environment authority with highest reputation for the municipality and municipality the for reputation highest with authority environment the also is RIEW communication inoccur thecooperation, and with procedures coordination the RIEW. municipality the of interactions hierarchical strongest The research. field the during also environmental- regional at authorities levelMoEW as it wasobserved subordinated to Planina” Stara “Central Park National the and RIEW with closely works municipality The landfill. regional the decisionsbig elaborated political about economiclike stake, or interestare at case the of and sensitive only when body decision-making a real into turns council The party. political his of majority the on relies mayor the council this at balance power political In principleconsultativerole. andveto itcould block of proposals mayorthe under but the Teteven Service Pleven and Veterinary ThemunicipalService and Teteven others.” consistingcouncil of of Publicand Control Health for Protection Lovech,Regional Meteorological Inspectorate of Lovech,exchange branch Enterprise with andSewage theWater is Teteven, 21 carried out information level regional councilorsAt level. regional at Pleven, Directorate Basin River and Pleven does in MoEW of the control Sofianational at level and falls inof RIEW operation areaof the the under is Municipality Teteven “The notmunicipality: the of subordination hierarchical have the about following the ownstates (p.30) Teteven EPP The governance. in environmental role play that experts authorities local and environmental state of tiers administrative hierarchal vertical but playssurrendered its legal institutions”authority these over are There (Pierre 2000). and Peters mostly subnationalthe government“enjoyed never some degreeof state autonomy the but Hierarchies by governance by where are law conducted vertical structures, state integrated 136 CEU eTD Collection Networks are paid backby managingthe of authority OPs. later which payments the advance to needs municipality although OPs from comes finding all Practically municipality. Teteven at projects environmental all by exemplified is clearly is fact This activities. and projects environmental many for capacity and funding EU) (and national on relies It policies. environmental local promoting to comes it when especially as everyTeteven Bulgarian other municipality isfinancially not independent from state, the establishment the association. of the supported public-private and of RIEW was presentthere partnershipwas optional director the of alternative an also when association landfill regional the joining about discussions in occasion consultations. Onanother dramaticconduct most moment heated of the public about when they newEPP experts the of consultations followed advice the not to The decisive influencedRIEW of authority in onecase the decision of municipalthe issuing guidelines (e.g.for preparation of environmental programs). protection by directions methodological provides Water and Environment of Ministry the addition andRIEW Danube River comments (for River Basin to Basin Directorate in Pleven). In municipal council by approval the and after environmentalthe commission for forwarded (InterviewWhen of Teteven T02). thenew EPP was drafted in 2009 it wassent first to RIEW,of Riverthe prescriptions of and Basin amendments of the Directorate in lawsthe the follows administration municipal The information. of source reliable most the 137 CEU eTD Collection municipality in a new direction. The partnership with the Swiss ended with the end of end the with ended Swiss the with partnership The direction. new a in municipality EU accession The inresulted new priorities of administrationthe drifted Teteven that A: No. We are done with it.” (Interview T06). when officialthe Q: Now ceasedisprojects anactive there communication? is,Boden big wherethe ski and big money are. “A: We…sawof alotthings…We had apartnership with Frutigen,Adel wherethe resort follow-up. have archives.the intoseemed is gone There vision to no the administration at a about However(Interviews theirresults T06andT07). and building-up of and trust friendship delegations wasbeneficial developBulgarian newfor to practices in partners tourism like Sustainabilityactors the TheexchangeTeteven. of Centre of visits of officialother for and Teteven of administration municipal the for especially admitted, interviewees the as fruitful, was It conditions. climatic and natural similar with municipalities mountain One example is with partnership the theSwissTeteven of municipality issues. of Frutigen - both environmental govern to administration the of capacity the for important were them They local national with the Teteven. partners connect andinstitutions. European Some of partnerships beyond of have pictureactors the broadened the administrative boundaries of officialin an listed or paper on formalized not invisible, usually are Networks not? why manner.if not, and Or if andcoordination in such networks Teteven? there AreIf they 2000). exist they are stable they are onand enhances resources, efficiency the of implementationpaper of public policy (Pierce andPeter they facilitates ofpublicThe governancenetworks of coordination the and private interests and could be non-existing in practice. The 138 CEU eTD Collection any efforts for its revival on the side of the municipality or of the NGO. which with theCSDTM have wasclosed heard andI notabout or observed cooperation the continued successfully so Not council). municipal of commission environmental association wasestablishedin last the Bulgaria (as chairman according the to of municipalities with other was made. Teteven’s demands progress weresatisfied and the recently, of consultations inafter arow with 2008 -2009, andMoEW heavy negotiations Only benefit. in mutual in cooperating slow institutions as municipalities Bulgarian depicts enhanced with establishmentthe of regional landfill association. lengthy The procedure with somesuccessful. above the of mentionedThe cooperation municipalities was very as is highlighted NGOs other some with as well as Development, Sustainable for Centre the with cooperation The Bryag. Cherven Lukovit, Apriltsi, Yablanitsa, successfullycooperates with neighbouringthe municipalities –Lovech, Troyan, municipality the that claims (p.30) factors management of Analysis III part in EPP agenda is development of plan for next the year [2010]”(Interview T09). agreementsigned,is there a programmeand is there for cooperation a fund. on the Now visitsidea andaproject underOPHuman Development. Resources “Thereis apartnership partnership with theItalian Ladispoli town hasonly reaped that cultural exchange, official 0. http://www.frutigen.ch/sitemap/online/navigation/frame.cfm?DomainID=263&LanguageID=1&UserID=0&FolderID= Bulgaria’s accession the EU:in 25 Swiss funding and accession the of Bulgaria in EU Thepartnership was denounced formally by the Municipal council of Frutigen2010 in due to the 25 . Teteven has chosen . Teteven a new 139 CEU eTD Collection Community experts. EU municipal of association professional another of establishing in resulted which NAMRB by initiated England to visit study in a participant was and BAMEE of member thisstudy. Marian case Alexiev, unit head EUintegration of the andthe is EUprojects a national Two associations –BAMEEand NAMRB with comprise relevance networks for (ordinance) our takingstructure specifics.” intoaccount our (Interview T08). reading,the do andcapacity.some scope We analysis do choose, and decide how to in municipalities similar at look “We T02). (Interview activity” certain a perform they how consult, we municipalities, similar with etc. budget, potential, our population, our to similar municipalities with municipalities, close-by from colleagues with touch in keep „We in rule-drafting. used they that municipalities similar or neighbouring from colleagues some governance choices.The municipal relationships have experts good with their mainthe policy and they correct influence However trends. the andday-to-day operations independentStill senior arenot inor enough experts these municipal hierarchyinfluence to on holiday came to work at noon and left around 8 p.m. - a full working day on a day off.without compensation. Ipersonally witnessed how the head of a unit Marian Alexiev being in andhave air of brought change and commitment. They overtimeare able evenwork to All projects. members of unitsthese inEU are youngTeteven people. They and are enthusiastic integration EU protection, environmental - administration municipal traditional with andpractices, modern education and specialization. Their are new tasks for the attitudes working similar with experts young of network a is there municipality Teteven In 140 CEU eTD Collection primary school and part took in cleaning-up of two rivers. professional high school forestry for and woodworking partnered with kindergartens and a the at club eco the of Members town. in the schools the with actions cleaning-up from yard school the and surrounding areas. At samethe day municipalitythe organized motto “That’s what we in part variouscaught activities2010 andtook –collecting garbagefrom riverthe under the in it celebrated in Vit Cherni village in our Benkovski river” Georgi school primary the from pupils (see The Figure 4 below) ormany so of them not happened were exactlyand There two practices. on Day.the Earth collecting garbage andJune2009 news 2010,the from municipal homepageidentify to such initiatives and Day. like Ihave followeddates Earth the for more than 6 months, between December significant on municipality the in schools by initiated mostly are campaigns community The nearby plantsthermoelectric and power military polygon. the by polluted was city the when Zagora Stara of citizens the mobilised that pollution mightOne reason environmental Teteven. lackbeacute the of problems such as industrial of Centre Sustainability the and municipality the by jointly conducted 2008 in meetings 4-5 – landfill regional of discussions public of instances were There exceptional. are rules environmental on debates public and discussions involvement, and initiatives Community 141 CEU eTD Collection public survival, life, edgeof the are capsulatedare at in or or the moment. They do not various directions.in … they theperiod 2007-2009 (NGOs) either have disappeared from benefit. Then they problem,thissearched for another is but like apuzzle, in actions adocument activity it,produced or working a problem, on started and generated social found had leaders by led their NGOs “The on. 2000 from in Teteven NGOs environmental community” One 2000)? intervieweePeter and (Pierce recollected his experience with by of members resolved better be can which matters on “decide community the What is the role of NGOs- local and national- in Teteven? Could they as representatives of Beside campaignsthese activities the of NGOs express society’sthe and represent voice. policy accumulation.” (Interview T03). cleanedwhat? They rivers, the so will be same the way nextyear.This means is there no problems in a long-term and tostrategic decisions of community importance. “[If] we have Althoughcivil casesof engagementresolving campaignsthese to contribute not do homepageSource: Municipality. of Teteven in village. day Cherni Vit Earth’s Figure 4 142 CEU eTD Collection experience or capacity to push for changespush forexperience capacity everywhere. They to or involvedare not in drafting have not do NGOs national The role. watchdogs’ or observers’ play even not do and The localan alternative NGOs inand of are not decision-making centre Teteven power muchwithout noise because nobody pays itattention outside the to municipal building. stands higher theagenda andinon planning hierarchy). One new EPPcould be passed by law becauseof significancethe or municipal (the document of the development required plan unless decision-making collective-choice active enforce not do still municipalities samehappened in story Dobrich was nochange wherethe of leadingthere The experts. the but initiation the of time bythe inexperienced was unit the of head new the and experts environmental of change was there that been have might reason One EPP. of development in anyway in the replicated not was it However, institutions. and people of involvement of draftingThe process of MDPwasted. the resulted in participationbroad and lessonsand accumulatedThe good be seem (Interview forgotten T05). to experiences 200 people. –about Everybodytogether was invited, everybody knewit]” [about got we plan development municipal the “For role. important more reportedly played previousthe Under mayor when municipalthe developmentplan was discussed the NGOs NGO] and it is very hard ...” (Interview T05). lendinvites not is there usahand.does alsoNow co-financing aspartners, us [by the “withoutmoney- us, parksteppeddown,the nobody nobody work, supports notit does has beencritical for survival a representative of of “Priroda”, RibaristaNGOs according to implement benefits not generate anddo activities” Thelack(Interview T03). of funding 143 CEU eTD Collection drive investments in management waste and Interview(WMP Teteven,2 T02). effectiveness utilization,increase theresource responsibility the to of of pollutersthe and environmental the reduce policy to improveimpacts, causedby the to waste, generated management frameworkThe waste the programme for municipal sets managementwaste cleaning landfillingdisposal, streets, transportation, the of collection.waste andseparate mostlythe are and interested onwaste seekforeconomic service actors contracts managementThe waste isdomain largest the of local environmental governance where the Markets easily put off. their of placepeople lucrative to and the nature deals for apiece of land could not be establishedDespite the in traditions environmentalproduct. and attachment the protection new developmentsand because landscape preserved the nature is of touristicpart the This casein wasthe Ribaritsa, after having wherepeople builttheir didwant houses not environmental when concerns economic developmentinterferes with their interests. own raise people Local experts. municipal the of expertise the on rely they Mostly public of officialthe functions representative they alsopart are but local government. with bodies permanent only the are environment on commission the and council municipal The stakeholders. all representing decision-making environmental collaborative for formal not are community there In Teteven environmental forums (committees, councils) participate. to tools formal also have not like documents even of such strategic less or soin EPPs local law-making wherethey do 144 CEU eTD Collection MoEW’s environmentalMoEW’s management and henceenterprise. EUprojects protection their schemes of –oneon-goingideaUNICEF and project project one for funding by the of Development.31 municipal Only out projects two these aretied to projects not Capacity Human OP and Programme Development Rural Development, Regional by also financial butto the documents and strategic schemes of OP Environment, OP The choices of andactions municipalitythe prepared. only are not shaped by formal rules –theapplicationone second the andunder forms forof construction landfillthe the a regional landfill firstUnder the contract theirlocal partners. association was established and EPTISA and Ramboll – consultants international two were there landfill regional the and Bulgarianthe OPs foreign support companies municipalities. to contracted Regarding of consultancyThe market services is alsowell developed large with funds available under oldthe vehicles from streets. the of removal for campaign a run will they soon that predicted unit environmental municipal been implementedinstalling for lots of end-of-life for treatment containers. of A the contact vehicles has not yet becauseinvestneed not to does in equipmentand services onlybut provide the companyto with of lackimpose not collection financial does Separate settlements. duties municipality onthe all that to of service this expand funds. to is intention The izvor. Bulgarski and Glojene InRibaritsa, the summer collection waste forin separate company 4 mainEcopack settlements –Teteven, of 2010 the headcleaning street andmaintenance municipality areas.The of green transportation, has commissioned the collection, waste of out carry to LLC Eco-Titan contracted municipality The 145 CEU eTD Collection Projects infrastructure. tourism again including protection environmental waitingThe projects natural resources. funding consist of of 5 projects concern that preservation for importance high of is Teteven of case in which infrastructure tourism – mostlyinfrastructure management water on management, alsobutwaste on and forestry From the on-going projects 8 are closely related to environmental protection and legislation and no formal opposite local rules could be introduced by the local authorities. local the by introduced be could rules local opposite formal no and legislation national the into transposed legislation EU of requirements the contain rules These them. with comply should level local at citizens and businesses administration, the and in biodiversity) (e.g. regulation of areas in specific adopted are level national at rules legal formal The authorities. local for available funds EU with and locally created or followed has rules markedthe andpracticesThe Europeanization in leastTeteven at with rulesthe Europeanization5.7. Table 5Projects of Teteven municipality (as of 2010). 14 5 project ideas 17 ongoing inwithwaiting- 17on-doing total or approval and 14 project ideas (see homepagethe at of municipalitythe projects going or projects in pipelinethe are there 31 on- for unit investment and integration EU the of 2010 planfor annual the to According rules (about what, who and when) prevail at local level. It is the “only game in town”. Environmental Specific Environmental 8 environmental field tourism - 1 forestry -1 management waste management water Comments enterprise MoEW environmental protection by befunded to idea project one Only schemes, by UNICEF Only EU one isnot fundedunder funds Table 5 below). 146 CEU eTD Collection Teteven and others) are among the losers from the EU funding. among losers from EU are the the and OP The Teteven others) schemes do not days”The local three (Interview for T01). NGOs (Sustainabilityproposal of Centre within work colleagues tightdeadlines. to Sometimes a we needprepare project to nobody is in abig hurry.“Sometimes becausehated most wearethe we need push to our differentat speed whilework theircolleagues follow the of small routine the where town sharedthey experts that The EU feel people dealsprojects. with EU isolated because they municipalthe localof At consultants. of NGOs andappearance administration a unit of 3 establishment shifts unit as and declineof a newEU in of the provoked actors the powers The EUmoney and rulesspending for them ledrecruiting to of new people, to leadership. municipal the of image political for and life of quality the for critical are investments These 26 mayorthe According to BGN/5.5 mil.whereas2010) onlyEUR for cycle water the project is for 40mil. BGN. mil. 11 (about budget municipal whole the than higher times in is funding of amount preoccupiedbeen has administration withmunicipal The never”. or EUnow funding“It’s municipality. the of recently potential financial and administrative the all to mobilised makehas OPs the under thefunds Cohesion best use of incoming EU funds.The Theother face of EuropeanizationEU-driven inrules management). (e.g. waste Municipalities legislate could in by areas delegated – lawthe and in cases pertainingmost to the rush for EU money via EU Structural and http://new.teteven.bg/index.php?mod=news&id=239. 26 projects for 19.5mil. BGNhave been implemented in 2010. 147 CEU eTD Collection In Teteven I have encountered this problem as the most vibrant and overarching, binding overarching, and vibrant most the as problem this encountered have I Teteven In decision-making. and debates initiatives, expert and political of series a to led requirement This landfill. regional of management and construction for association municipal management.waste The regional landfillestablishmentrequired project – of a regional policy environmental local most the in abound policies EU regarding obligations Other T01). (Interview consultants.” with work municipalities the All They A:only No. have experience.need to We simply who have those chose experience. “Q: Is there any restrictionwork withto NGOs? requirements for experience. meet need some hand, experts formal companies. to “preferred” the other On the any local acirclecase at levelcreate of chancesmore are local to there andpartners issue of practicesthe isresearch. In scope since the outside ofcorruption exploration the allegationsmunicipal that managementdid I notprefers its investigate experts. “own” this Withcoveringexperts. 30-40experts every area” (Interview The NGOs T02). expressed with consultancies. wework “On They private projects consultants. have very good NGOs and for havenow work become usedto experts these of Some projects. on work The administration applications external and companiesexperts prepare contracts to or because of lack of activeand interest ability administration. the pressure to sometimes or resources limited their of because but management project municipal find their place in this new closedonly gamethe administrative not due to system of the provide many opportunities for them. Their capacity is declining because they could not 148 CEU eTD Collection measures forced from outside which they understand.not Anotherdo problem is thatthe itwill it, on work a feelingPeoplelast.get need to of ownershipaccept and donot circumstances and embracedby local people andcommunity.“If they [local people] will administrationdeveloplocal and theirpeople to capacity own initiativeor in local rooted supranational level The was found.full– focus drains on EU projects the capacity of the case of uploadNo Europeanization –transfer 2005). innovative of practices to (Marshall programmes EU of implementation and negotiation from arising governance, of system local within participants and preferences GreenLight), like initiatives EU-wide in -changesEuropeanization in policies, participation the (e.g. practices of municipality the changesThe in andpractices choices of inlocal form take of Teteven actors download dividends. political only take if we government local of reputation image good scale and of investments20 mil. cycle).creates forabout water It (e.g. Euro Lukovitwhich will in serve Teteven. is surprising Such attitude not landfill given the staggeringregional the town, the of facility treatment wastewater - millions cost that in facilities investments – environment better to contribution its underlined and EU praised commissions) two of chairmen the secretary, (the council and administration municipal hasbecomerhetoric main politicalEU the of part talk atmunicipalities. The leaders of landfill. regional the about (forums) discussion public organizing with involved council held aspecial public session. Sustainability The was alsoTeteven of Centre conditions before joining issue. The contested municipal association wasthemost the politicians, experts, citizens,together of municipality interest The NGOs. get good to 149 CEU eTD Collection sometimes their only of livelihood. andreal source asset hand, other On the all this is nature The mountains. the in high them of some villages, in lives population municipal the of Half cities. in bigger living Bulgarians most the than nature the to closer are mountains, beauty – nature and riversforests, resources and rich biodiversity. The people by its hand, one on isconditioned, municipality Teteven at protection environmental The Summary5.8. coordination” (Interview T01). kindkindwhat that of clumsiness, of procedures, kind what of organization, whatkind of obviously localthe intocircumstancesaccount taken have kind -“what not amachine, whereas Romania2009, These experts and afterpolicy 2013. the for negotiated state June after effect with negotiated was landfills municipal illegal of closure for obligation bywas pointed negotiations the with EU out localthe Forexample,respondents. in the experts national of approach idealistic and enthusiasm the ground, the on going is what realities and and overburdened with tasks political pressures. The lack of knowledge about municipal burdenfor bureaucratic The national experts. administration is far from localthe The Europeanizationlocal players.tax and is authorities local on fall will notinfrastructure the of onlymaintenance and management their of about money will of projects the when outcomes soon the and burden and then appear the tested price and projects.empty capacity foradministrative at level.” could bestatements Such T03). (Interview It bringsadministration is aiming fully generatingat value from itbutprojects,European gets about a heavy 150 CEU eTD Collection (Interview T03). they 2009 eitherhave left publicthe life, aresurviving or capsulated or in moment”.the After joining NGOsin EU general have little funds access EU to and “in periodthe 2007- schoolsdecisive they NGOs but and are not tourist in the policy and rule-making process. practicallysuspended Initiatives or theirclosedoperations. down are undertaken by intoa weakposition vis-à-visyears they got recent municipal They authorities. have been rich institutional background and implementedhave various projects in lastthe 10years.Ribaritsa In the “Priroda”, and Teteven of Centre Sustainability the like NGO local Some mayor andhis team. the to priorities and rules on work real the for rely council and commission the Otherwise EPP. of draft first the of commission environmental the in discussion the during as such power veto to usually resorts council municipal The ordinances. municipal on lawyers with cooperation in close rules, environmental the drafts and initiates unit The citizens. with and institutions environmental national and regional with administration, the at colleagues with communication routine in protection environmental with basis daily on deals experts council where his party forms largestpolitical the The environmental group. unitof three term provedbe to a strong and charismatic leader.first Hehis in alsoeven enjoys who the supportmayor of municipal the by led administration municipal the is actor influential most The ground. the on governance environmental of picture simpleoverall a show making rule- and rules environmental The predict. might one as complex as not is constellation happens inThe actors’ governance spaceruled by actors. andauthorities other 151 CEU eTD Collection consulted. Often decisionsconsulted. under aretaken pressure of the national and regional theoretically rule-makingthe and to contribute actively couldare not support process broaderin part it.this In sense municipal took council inisrepresents some only the way that the actor protection/sustainability interestsenvironmental on group commission/committee/working e.g. – administration municipal to alternative perspective long-term with forum or institution ofstrategic No council. municipal by approval and theunits among communityThey usual the underwent administrative of drafting, procedure internal coordination and amendments of the drafting the new EPP of of municipal environmental ordinance. outsideDuringpractices. fieldthe research rule-makingin two 2009-2010 – occurred processes and routines internal follows process drafting the and administration municipal the the administration.The rule-making isby conducted localThe of owner government process the isstructures. rules. informal other and strategic for and rules legal formal for both true holds This administration. municipal the and mayor the of powers implementation The and legal the forward put explicitly rules The NGOsadministration. the for important that ruleslegallymain for not asstrategic Teteven, documents two strategic binding but The environmental programme management waste andthe protection programme arethe Recentlyrules. ordinancethe wasamended with massa new on chapter spread wastes. management tobiodiversity protection. This is a good approach of codification of local comprises all of environmentalaspects local delegated to level protection - from waste that ordinance environmental single a to confine municipality the at rules formal The 152 CEU eTD Collection population. The municipality has not gone beyond the priorities of the OP Environment. It Environment. OP the of priorities the beyond gone not has municipality The population. complyfacilities treatment with theobligations wastewater for above equivalent10000 to Bulgaria for requirement EU the of pressure the of and municipality the in systems managementand waste because daresituation the infrastructure water of of wastewater in investments at aim Teteven of projects environmental municipal important most The activity. Centrethe in its bestyear people had 10 staff. both Now NGOs perform do not any only public whereas experts environmental 3 employed has administration municipal The forests. in the survival and friendly behaviour in environmentally country whole the from year per Sustainability andTeteven of Centre “Priroda”Ribaritsa,. kids“Priroda” trained thousands community leaders andimplemented environmental and activitiesprojects -the activelocal civil andexperiencedbe strong engagement. NGOsusedto leasttwo At brain drain in biggerthe and private direction towns companies to causesevere deficitof The new financing external actors. organizations andother rules for OPscoupled with the non-governmental downplays and Bulgaria in government local of positions strong traditionally reinforces Europeanization The infrastructure. in environmental investments for municipality of needs strategic its meets that money provides It funding. EU is administration municipal for priority and force driving The Teteven. like municipalities Bulgarian in the threats and challenges new along brought have times EU new The commenced only in 2008-2009. was which association landfill regional with case the was This authorities. environmental 153 CEU eTD Collection promote much stronger and independent local environmental policy. environmental local independent and stronger much promote infrastructureand municipal the management formulatehasup thetaskto taken not and in investments the beside term beneficial politically not is protection environmental general, In claim. a such confirms management in waste fines imposing on or the society” (Interview T03). The lack of policy on biodiversity protection, soil protection, bring not politicalenvironmental along does good assessment,protection assessmentfrom haveRural Development beenProgram) initiated. the claim This supports “the that biodiversity (beside recovery forest on one of damaged 200ha. forests by fires under the even considerseriously not does them of one – biodiversity on projects No protection. 154 CEU eTD Collection dusty roads. and buildings industrial to next located is Park Diplomat hotel another where town the of socialisttime’ main the fashion.between There is asharp contrast square and the outskirts church the parkaround everythingand town the looks run-down and designed in building an old administration municipal Plaza, Diplomat hotel four-star its with downtown the firstAt sightof anyLukovit town the provoke does not appealing impressions. Outside andassess findings data reference to pointas astrong Teteven from Lukovitcase. cases The comparative uses thefirst modeof two the case of was shorter. time there spent cavesand prevail. field the Lukoviton The research preceded visits the Teteven but to valleys like formations karst and m. 306 is altitude average the here Teteven, in mountains forests and the landscapesto quire contrast different, in areasare In both though. capital.They face similarsocial, demographic and economic challenges. and Nature municipalities is two The drawn. areclose in of terms size, economic situation and social In additiongovernance. comparative analysis with theneighbouring municipality Teteven environmental local explore to rule-making of process and rules environmental type rural analysed of municipality Bulgarian medium-size a of case second the is inmunicipality thisLukovit dissertation.6.1. Introduction to the case The case studyVI. The case of Lukovit municipalityfocuses again on actors, substance of 155 CEU eTD Collection occupational occupational health and safety.” meeting for energy latestthe in standards efficiency, Europe, environmental protection, investment.Wienerberger investedmil.“build25 to Euro most the modern ceramic plant are few largeenterprises including industrial of them factories, one a new Austrian According Municipalthe to DevelopmentPlan 2007-2013 in Lukovitmunicipality there settlements. Itis part of Lovech province (oblast). and11 Teteven of town the of consists municipality The Lovech. and Pleven – cities big next the to connections good with Sofia from away km. 110 is Lukovit town. the crosses 28 27 Lukovitwith population of 10 787people sq. km.and population the 20855people. The administrative center is town the of plainwith themountain in terrain landscape contrast is The territory Teteven. of 454,225 Planina ofStara north the along Mountain is ZlatnaLukovit to located Panega River with Lukovit6.2. of asacase Bulgarian municipality them on before visits.work andafter the to able was I and online available are studied have I documents All protection. environment and talks with all decision-makersimportant concerning andexperts local governance and all conducted interviewsplanned – in suggested or of course the research. Ihad meetings I exception one with and conditions working good with me provided administration I visited municipality the in Septemberand 2009 in July The mayor2010. and his http://www.lukovit.com/bg/index.php?start_from=480&ucat=&archive=&subaction=&id=&. Municipal homepage: http://www.lukovit.com/en/. 28 It was opened on 28May,was opened on 2008 by It the Bulgarian prime 27 . The main. The between Sofia androad Ruse 156 CEU eTD Collection reason as in the case of Teteven the major investments in public sector in environmental in public sector investments major the Teteven of case in the as reason environmentalprogramme investments400 000BGN.The for about needed for development of modern urban infrastructureThe municipal budget9 mil.about 2010 amounts for to BGNwith an investment are beyondBulgarian cheese (sirene) andmilk. municipality’swonderfulpreserved ecologic nature, diversity and ecologically cleanits –honey, products if promoting competitive be could tourism Bulgarian the Hotel Plaza Diplomat of own resources. andowner commission environmental the of chairman the to According Plaza. Diplomat For that of one them opened, hotels were lastyears 4 In the the star and three asset. attraction The first on Balkansthe Geopark Areas(Art.23-25). is Protected a magnificentnature cliff and two formations aredesignated landmarks asnature the Law according to of caves inattractive Bulgaria could be found. caves 240 have been explored and6of them Panega River,spelunking in Karlukovski the complexkarst where some of mostthe potentialbig is there landmarks historic and for cultural of nature visits traditional the Beside and municipality. the adventure tourism – water The tourism istown. one of promisingthe sports avenues for further economic development of in the riverthe bypass and will be inoperation canyons Sofia-Varna Hemus highway new the when potential of Zlatna favourablebusinessfor factor developmentalthough mightbe lose expected to its SofiaBulgariaconnects withNorthern and83 that Romania E road onthe location is one clothes, manufacturing and cleansingof detergents andexport agents. The strategic packaging,cardboard electrical household appliances dealer,manufacturing of fashion minister.Among businesses other cardboardandcorrugated of areproduction corrugated 157 CEU eTD Collection name Eyes). –the Figure cave(see 5) has Prohodna unique shape of eyes onits ceiling (which gave its other movie for and sets concerts for stages requirethat productions pristine background. Karlukovoand PanegaRiver (see FigureThe 5). caves have that wonders are nature been area which includes geologic andgeomorphologic heritage from karstareaof the Onelandmark Lukovit, 5). (EPP average of phenomenathese is displayed in Geopark the whereas forests against the lesscover 58.7%) average(70.30% space than country and cliffs.The agricultural land is prevailing higher with than percentage country the mountainshills not butThere are and canyons, insteadare great big of there caves forests diversity. its with striking still but Teteven in than different quite is Lukovit in nature The 6.3. Environmental context - resources and problems sector. water integrated fundedinfrastructureEnvironmentare OP the under regional –the landfill and the 158 CEU eTD Collection Habitats DirectiveHabitats and Birds directive. Bulgarski izvorunder Habitats the Directive 92/43/EECand Studenets under both the municipality designated in 2007: Karlukovski underkarst Birds Directive 79/409/EEC, areaswithin of territory the the NATURA protected have 2000 three to reason the is richness biodiversity This nipalensis). (Aquila eagle steppe the of habitats three imperial eagle (Aquila heliaca) included theIUCNRedlistas vulnerable on andoneof the of in Bulgaria habitats main two the of one is Here mammals. and species) (30 fish unique and diverse flora (some of speciesthe areendemic and relicts) and faunawith – birds, 16) Lukovit, (EPP studied well not is that biodiversity rich has municipality The LukovitSource: municipality homepage. Figure 5The canyon of Panega river. 159 CEU eTD Collection added valuable informationcompile to picture. the interviews the So problems. and conditions environmental into insights fresher provide By 2004. timethe field of any not were there trips newer official documents couldthat environmental is background situationpresented there mostly according data to from and 2010 until is timeframe Its answers. some partly gives municipality Lukovit of (EPP) programme protection Environmental governance. environmental by local addressed be Even that the pressure of economy is not too acute in Lukovit there are other problems to LukovitSource: municipal homepage. Figure 6Prohodna cave eyes). (The 160 CEU eTD Collection Although in general local anyindustrypose not does substantial airpressures on qualitypollution. is air EPP in mentioned not problems protection environmental usual the of One managementand of waste in general. landfilling, treatment, wastewater of problems the addressing funds available and accession governance will be discussed inThe mainsections. thenext improvements EU are dueto The administrative,financial and environmental organizational for better factors The main weaknesses identified by are: (p.59-60) EPP 29 municipalthe At homepage http://www.lukovit.com/en/ecology.php?show=status. x x x x x x x x x x no wastewater treatment plant. treatment wastewater no lossfrom –conduits; water water the waste; of landfilling inflow rivers;the of wastewaters municipal one; of lack and municipality the of territory the on control and monitoring any of lack poor knowledge of the existing options for financing field; of projects in this field;environmental in capacity organizational and administrative insufficient problems; “case bywork case” –asystematic isapplied approach not by solving the irrational use of natural resources; lack of financialenough resources; 29 and in EPP could be found discussion of the main problems. the of discussion found be could in EPP and 161 CEU eTD Collection During the first stage a municipal association of five municipalities was established in established was municipalities five of association municipal a stage first the During L02). (Interview minuses” and pluses all with territory our at be will [landfill] it because management waste better systema create in general. “The leading municipality is Lukovit and municipalities 5 all for problems landfilling the solve should which Lukovit in landfill stages of preparation of an two investment supported ISPA under project regional for of municipality. the mayorof territory deputy the 100% the covers Technical assistance waste containers by AstonService ltd. andthe costs formaintenance.their 30 condition and newgood ones have been purchased equipment inand are waste containersTeteven in for transportation The waste a Ltd. very is private the collection companywaste andfor transportation Aston Service contractor main The dumps. village illegal the of down closing the after landfilling with problems with The wastemanagementis characterized with infrastructureupgraded andservices but also Management Enterprise. was funded Karlukovo. project The byof National the Environmental Protection village in the storage safe a to them moving with resolved was pesticides old with problem oflimebecause of production the need cultivation that Lukovit, 14).One (EPP acute onlyup in the lastyears (Interview L03).There arecontaminated sites Karlukovoaround contaminatedby illegal dumps with andconstruction household wasteandwere cleaned were Soils Yablanitsa. - municipality neighbouring a of territory the on located effectisdeteriorating claimed cement from the factory in villagethe of Zlatna Panega and is town the a crosses big main the Rousse Sofia of pollution. source - road most The According to municipal council’s decision According to municipal ofcouncil the approved of22.04.2008 purchase 56 new 30 . The waste collection according to 162 CEU eTD Collection landfill for the region as a priority for the municipality. The mayor has been actively been has mayor The municipality. the for priority a as region the for landfill implement to resources them”.underlinedHe also importance the of newthe regional capacity and competences local at level. “The mayor has many responsibilities and limited municipality.the agenda of The main problemshim according to resources, were the the ison high environment that confirmed he mayor the with interviews short two the At local schools (Interview L07). of reform education the concerning like policy state the of ahead thinking sometimes and leaderand extraordinary economistwith vision and perspective anticipating changes the manager assistantof a bankprofessor, andof textileHe waspraised factory. asa strong independentcandidate.He has academic strong and managementbackground asan wingparties although during the last election two campaigns he was runningleft as an the to closer was he general in but – time in varied affiliation political His 1999. in starting one first the mandate, in histhird serves Nichev Peter Mr. Lukovit of mayor The Mayor Local actors6.4. MoEW. at Environment applicationthe showed that form was submitted the Managing to Authority of OP Environment. from data The latest Lukovitanalysed in dissertationthe 2010] [October comprised and preparation submission of application form for funding under OP ownershipthe future the over over landfill.take February to 2009 The next step 163 CEU eTD Collection environmental ambient and energy protection, airefficiency). protection with routine duties or evenregional landfill cycle water and have integrated him prevented with the - sometimes from dealing projects moreenvironmental main two strategicon obligations pressing most His issuesassociation. landfill likeregional established draftingnewly the of director executive as offormally newappointed programs (ofwas expert new The L01)). (Interview not or vacation on was colleague his whether know not did Iinterviewed one the (e.g. experts two these between coordination isno there that observed I communication follow-up the in later and visits myfield of time the At L05). (Interview areas” green in community functions with was expert previous The functions. “Until recently have didDirectorate. we not now an with environmentalexpert pure Sustainablefor was employed work Development to and Integration European programmes fortemporary employment.Only since 2009 a second environmental expert years12 andcombined position the of environmental withexpert duties like other social The firsthas beenTeteven. expert community areasspecialistgreen the municipalityat for supervision samethe of at deputy the work mayoradministrativenot do but unit unlike in specializedenvironmentalgeneral Two directorates. andtwo areunderexperts the The mayor Lukovitof is assisted in his workby one deputy mayor and four heads of two Municipal administration association and its strongest supporter in front of the other municipalities. engaged in regionalthe landfill development. became He achairman newof the 164 CEU eTD Collection environment. The environment. casemunicipalities andTeteven other commissionseparate no deals only with to Similarly ecology. and planning land and town on commission the of competence the in falls protection Environment councillors. 21 of consists Lukovit of council municipal The Municipal council achieved. environmental rules of prevention environmental andthe damages could be better of implementation the administration municipal the of capacity control improved collectiononly dissertation forthe data overallthe idea be could assessed. Underan usual the local sincecapacity outgrows it within and However practices. timeframethe of studying worth outcomes and impacts with initiative large a is This town). the in people employedleast foryear at one people in (10 10 settlements of Lukovitmunicipality and 5 been implementedprofessionalfor project fundededucation by OP Development of Human Resources has to trainwarn them againstlittering” (Interview L03).In endthe of 2010, beginning of 2011 a 19 peoplehousehold (Interview andwaste” L01)and construction „reprimand offenders the and for eco inspectors environmentalthe “keepto aclose They experts. hadordinances watch to on and report municipal of implementation the control to in 2009 employed were inspectors eco andTwo 15 of them later to be to implement due to financial and capacity limits of local authorities. According to him him the to According authorities. local of limits capacity and financial to due implement to chairman environmental of the commission (aleading businessman), ideas are hard good regionalon and national level (emphasisAccordingLukovit added,EPP 2006, 61). the to institutions other with and sector non-governmental with in collaboration LEG of forces municipal council and municipal administration as the main driving main the as administration municipal and 165 CEU eTD Collection connected to one local one leaderand businessman to connected – Mr.Vladimir Daskalov. behind He stand affiliatedwith Diplomat hotels andtheirand congress training activities.are two Theother forBalkan training, Centre Unique of andPaths Time Nature –arelisted.The first isone Diplomat – goals environmental somewhat with NGOs three lists homepage municipal The NGOs. environmental local any strong at out point not did respondents The Teteven. in those field than environmental in the active visible lessand are in Lukovit NGOs The NGOs obstacles (Interview could L07). occur of administration,the work the observe he/she could andideas, becometo many detested and because of this theassemblies initiatives isone previous two theleast propose current not the active, does the administration to Compared administration”. municipal strong means council municipal strong also“a that “sleeps”.maintains He anything. on administration the council If to a municipality councillorthe for help any of tries to put forwardmunicipal council leastat [higher] 6people arewithout education and sothey becould not current the in mandate third his in councillor a to According low. be to claimed is making rule- the into contributions substantial provide to councillors municipal of capacity The municipality. the to councillors as payments their all donated they colleagues other with Together municipality. He provided anexample of personal of councillorsthe prosperity devotion the of to issues. these with deal to administration municipal authorise to vote only could level local at councils municipal the and level national at anyway taken are decision important most 166 CEU eTD Collection biodiversity. At the Supreme Environmental Expert Council to the Minister of Minister the to Council Expert Environmental Supreme the At biodiversity. of national attention environmental NGOs because of its potential damages the to the areaKarlukovoattracted An investment neara golf protected for the course proposal American volunteerwho initiatedwere present. project the openingthe At ceremony and mayor,the director the Peace Crops Corps. the Peace environment”to “Higher of a project respect underSPA Kostantinov Programme of the community like openingthe in February 2005 of an Ecocenter environmental sponsored realisedwere donor In Lukovit initiatives alsoother for the and developmentpromotion as avaluable municipality.of the asset DevelopmentemphasisesPlan71) (p. the potential of whichGeopark needs further 32 31 developmentand preserving for natural generations”. future resources of natural attractiveness heritagethe while samethe at time sustainable promoting tourism raise to and Lukovit of Municipality in the regions karst from landmarks national various based on a mosaic product anintegratedtourist create of to Geoparks; of Networks nationalthe promotingfor geotourism potential levelEuropean at European the through achievements. include goals Its establishment of “the first in Geopark Bulgaria as a tool by authoritieswas supported municipalitythe that and became a landmark of municipal biodiversity and landscape is protection an excellentcase of leadership official outside supportof the PHARE Program “Development of Bulgarian Ecotourism”. This project for ideaand implementedthe realisation project –Panega Izkar of Geopark with financialthe Eco center- http://www.lukovit.com/bg/ecology.php?show=ecocenter http://geopark-bg.com/e_index.html. 32 at the High school Aleko 31 Municipal 167 CEU eTD Collection ordinances rule environmental the field: general one public(on traffic safety order, and inthings weak years field were the ago, of environment” (Interview L03).Three 12-13 beginning, “in the that stated experience long with expert An environmental years. 5 last the during topics and involume rapidly grown have rules environmental local The Legal 6.5.1. rules 6.5. Main environmental rules L03). been very useful “whenthem to - always turns one have couldinformation” get (Interview association the with relationships long-term the that claims who expert environmental withThe only connection Lukovitis membership the detected in BAMEE of an emergedas key haveplayers not in governance and environmental rule-making in Lukovit. national The NAMRBdiscussedinassociations andBAMEE the case study of Teteven local at level.protection environmental better time same the at and community the of interests the of representation between poolingand local of resources and national environmentalachieve NGO to better in under NATURASuch acasethe protection 2000area. shows need the of coordination confirmed significant the negative impacts developmentthe of habitatsthe on and species independent wascommissionedconclusionsstudy EIA report’s and the overthrew that NGOcommunitythe conclusions. report’ questioned EIA As the a consequence an Environment decides EIAof national on that and Waters importance arepresentative of National associations 168 CEU eTD Collection rules ordinance newest of the thegreensystem on green The (the areas for public use like municipality. Lukovit of territory the at system green of development and protection The greensystem ordinance planning, the regulates building, sustainable maintenance, the mayor are listed in 17 points of Art.2. The sanctions are in the range of 50-600 BGN. types.rights and The various waste obligations to of related as andauthorities persons of contains very detailed anddescriptiveprovide for rules organization that of functionsthe managementactivities andservices as well andas itsanctions. control the regulates It financialwaste, industrial and mass-spread provisions waste for construction, household, mayor the andlegal entities and individuals concerning management waste of solid cleannessalsoregulates maintenance.The ordinancerights and constitutes obligations for management waste of ordinanceThe scope overlaps with generalthe ordinance because it rules and prohibitions the of ordinancethe areupdatedperiodically (Interview L03). entitiesconcerned andindividuals. The sanctions are in range the of BGN.These50-500 like winterand summerconditions. They clearare and enforceable guides for action of the The rules specifics reflect rural the municipality of the and apply specificto circumstances between municipalcoordination administration,police andhealth authorities is regulated. the addition In citizens. and companies private of managers administration, municipal on obligations byimposing municipality the of territory the on cleanness of maintaining itwas the first local ordinance introduced) contains detailed ruleskeeping about and system.as Ordinance general The in ordinance to No.1 all (referred municipalities because cleanness maintenance); management waste on one and cleanness; and on one green 169 CEU eTD Collection really happen in Lukovit. The citizens, the public and the business want it to happen. [We] happen. to it want business the and public the citizens, The inLukovit. happen really could things that so up followed is plan “The municipality. the for importance high with inresulted balance witha document informationgood background between and analysis 80 people (Interview about L05).The open collaborative decision-making procedure community – citizens, prominentlocal leaders, business - representative and students As andagreed upon. a final consultants the facilitatedstep public hearing for the camewith priorities, up aimsdiscusseda were joint and at measures meeting that expert environment)advance. on working (one expert groups Four were set up.The groups priorities and aims. of drafting process The waspublicly announced and discussed in of publicprocess consultations and discussions which resulted in broadly accepted assisted by “Balkan consultantthe Assist” facilitated collaborative decision-making administration municipal The rules. environmental specific the than actors local more The development of Municipal DevelopmentPlan of (MDP) Lukovit attracted 2007-2013 rules Strategic 6.5.2. for individuals and between 100-2000 BGNfor companies. ordinancesThe sanctions –between arethehighest two BGN other 50-500 compared to terms of draftreference ordinanceempoweredthe under to for detailed planning. town is environment and planning land and town on commission permanent the Even (Art.3). system green of quality the manage to - powers specific with council municipal formally empower which rules local of example good a is This settlements. the of mayors governance functions municipalthe are council, mayorthe of municipality the and the green areas)arevery gardens andadvanced. street parks, Theauthorities vested with 170 CEU eTD Collection Environmental Protection Programme informative. references municipal with other environmental planning areclear documents and cementin of factory the Zlatna operation Panegain vicinity of municipality.the The cross- traffic.the Priority traffic isqualitythe road air given the and water anddue to the to from pollution air and noise of decrease and gas natural of use municipality, the in areas include basicown measures like of a regional construction landfill, maintenance of green management waste the measures programme referbutalso to The proposed protection. environmental in tendencies and conditions the of analysis the from conclusions draws and governance in environmental measures administrative-legal of application reviewingAfter main the environment to facts and planthe threats discusses the environment to – airquality,soils, devoted biodiversitywaters, and wastemanagement. The MDPhas alengthy section onenvironmental are 11 pages 2.5.) (part protection. contributions onenvironmentwhere few people have such knowledge and background. making of in rule- MDP is interest higher; The theoccurs. processes document more shell”) open to (“empty other actors and administrative not limitedmerely a cases onlymost to societal get and andalways political to resources pool andas seeksto a resultinsupport, not administration the field environment in the Conversely, areas. policy many covering Municipal administration acomprehensiveprepare wasable plan to in case the of MDP (Interview L05). location and people we resources, the havehave into account disposal…” taken at our 171 CEU eTD Collection vehicles andpackagingThe mainwaste. measures for planning the period arethe end-of-life like types waste specific with dealing on and management waste in situation environmental, economic and demographic sections and background focusesexisting on the local has times is program one much It three general Teteven the shorter. shorter to possiblebecause themunicipal were trainedexperts in drafting such Comparedprograms. administration neededcapacity the possess and experts whose experience. This was (Interview L03).The mostrecentprogram 2006-2010 waspreparedby the municipal introduced in Lukovit. “Whatwe did first managementwas thewaste 1998.” In program. management first wasthe The waste environmentalprogram rule of nature strategic Waste management program newwas commenced. program in 2010and until endthe yearthat of no of process collaborative decision-making for the municipalwith to the formalreporting of procedure council and RIEW. The EPPexpired comply rather but available publicly not are EPP of implementation the on reports annual generallocal relatedand to too not conditions are paragraphs Some and capacity. The analysis,SWOT goals andthe priorities are shortly inpresented endthe of document.the andfinancialsources donor of opportunities for funding of environmental The projects. financial,economicand demographicOne third programme factors. the of comprises a list analysespart environmental information background followed by a review of governance, utility from water experts company and health first The the 1). Lukovit, (EPP authorities Pleven, RIEW and administration municipal the of support expert the with Teteven of was drafted byThe programme It period covers the Sustainability 2006-2010. the Centre 172 CEU eTD Collection have improvement.” L05). (Interview ordinance only to haverules with legal ISO the compared rules.„The ordinanceslike are ISO.If the drafts one an it on paper is meaningless.issuing permits) of trade aremanaged accordingISO 9001standard. interviewee The to Every task hasadministrative and legal services, and land town planningto andlocal regulationstrade (e.g. be followed up to andpreventive corrective undertake activities” (Interview L05). As a result the implemented ifcouldthat be„tracked, so that isthere a breach, andcorrected, we could modules these only apply to decided municipality the member staff senior a to According 9001. ISO introduce to in Bulgaria municipalities first the of one was municipality The ISO 9001 program should comply with provisionsthe of regional waste managementprogram. regional landfill application management newthe waste draftforms new The to program. 2010 and municipal administration of a consultant expected support the whoworked on ecological education and public cleaning campaigns -areenvisaged. The WMP expired in underlinedas main principle WMPin of but action the plan activities–only concrete two collection waste and separate packagingon The public wastetreatment. participation is likeThe participation actors of shouldother economic happen operators under contracts Lukovit, 23). development regionalof landfill and organizing collection waste of separate (WMP 173 CEU eTD Collection representative of inRIEW of representative astatementwrite oneinstance against offender the could not a Even case. be exceptional to seem this but L06) (Interview respondent one fines (Interview„ L01). evena tree cutting for [I]f you you getfined” getcaught, claimed rulesaware of the and administration the not are finepeople not does them with higher old Sometimes BGN. 50 – minimum the at usually are fines The him/her. against up drawn deadlinecomply not If he/she actions. does take (usuallywith, a to statement is week) one evidences is drawn. a fact-finding.As and they carry out irregularitiesIf the of astatement the areattested, a result the offenderexactlywho shouldbe in A charge of commission matter. the is of experts three assembled is presented with filed environmentalthe administrationthe a to at and goes it The mayor experts. written decides is signal or A complaint path. this usually warning follows rules of enforcement of withprocedure The a managementrules’ offences. Whensanctions interviewees referring the waste. the to consider only sanctions for waste of cleaning-up immediately arranged manager the and landfill municipal the from meters case the deputy mayor called companythe were to wastepapers dumpedwhose 200 collect (Interviewlittered L09).In waste other to thestreets exampleon out andwent littering,Even people mayor about the etc. and mayor deputy showed initiative and good warn to – preventive and informative mostly is job whose inspectors two by performed is The usual budget. sanctions ordinancesthe of vary between 50 and 500BGN. The control municipal for source serious not are rules the violating for fines the Teteven in was it As Rule enforcement 6.5.3. 174 CEU eTD Collection municipalities to introduce new rules and the framework is set from above like in the case in the like above from set is framework the and rules new introduce to municipalities In Bulgaria asdiscussed in laws chapter IVthe anddelegate powers responsibilities the to bydrafted municipal experts. legalthe basis”account (Interview L03).All environmental ordinances in Lukovitwere depending their on size, could assess one what is into relevantand take andnot what municipalities, the in different so not are issues The ordinance. an draft to somebody to pay to need no is there that municipalities other from information much so is “There legalthe lawsand are of municipalities. the practices practice andthe databases, other the by commissionsvoted competent the and whole council.The main of sources information and reviewed is it there and council municipal the to it submits mayor The endorsement. draft andconsults ita with itsprepares head andfinally mayorthe to for itgoes When rule-makingthe is internal administrativethe unitin subjectcharge of the area In-house expertise assistance. in-house consultants’ based andon expertise on process centred interviewsthe enough features of rule-making in Lukovitemerged.is It administrative- field the highlight research to rule-making concrete in processes from Lukovit. However, haveordinancesdraftingstrategies) (of No been or procedures observed directly during 6.6. Rule-making process relativescomplain to and in end officialthe the gave up(Interview L03). officialthe happenedbecause that it all was from wentto herLukovitand wrongdoer the 175 CEU eTD Collection better structure and content with more analytical andcontent which structure parts show better the external experts’ in-housethe management craftedto waste Compared programme, andMDPhave EPP agricultural and rural development). local the initiative (e.g. projects underthe national and group plan other strategic for MDP of draft the on Lukovit in Assist” “Balkan like municipality one for work companies same the usually but procurement public of result a is formally consultants of selection experiencedconsultancy “Balkan Assist” washiredassist administration.the to The yieldedsocial evenbroader andandattention mobilized expert larger An resources. hiredecidedan to external consultant(Interview L03).The MDP of Lukovit2007-2013 was it consultant) a hired have all (they municipalities other with consultation after and management waste the wasmuch of scope Teteven. The broader compared to programme The drafting Sustainabilitythe to EPP of of Lukovit out 2006-2010 was contracted Centre Consultants with active participation of municipal officials in experts caseof andthe MDP. other developmentplan and environmentalthe though programme wereoutsourced, protection external expertise. thecaseof Lukovitonly In bigthe rules strategic – the municipalfor looks or experts own its on relies municipality the rules the of complexity and scope required by lawthe and should in beundertaken future (Interview L05). Depending on the The ordinances comprise alreadyeither practices of rules regulate that in place are or circumstances. local the reflects ordinance the closely how municipality to municipality management waste of green andsystems. A certain model is followed and itvaries from 176 CEU eTD Collection opportunities becauseopportunities they ensure money and reputation. enjoy benefits.them alsothe to Theleadership already have taken advantage of newthe by and external administration andprojects consultants brought the EU needs accept to communication withchanges foreign Most in experts. practices are andconstant procedures the maintain to project landfill regional the with assigned later be to translator requiremodern and education knowledge. An was hiredexpert asEnglish language that filled in positions people new units new Only in the L07). (Interview doors” their on They become[municipal person. ahated administration]ignoring you if start you knock administrationrequirementthe enemies.for he got “If you have initiative you could changedeasily. When municipalone councillor raised issue the of as education (previously alsoa deputy mayor) here work for long. And this couldset-up not be mayorand head the of sustainablethe development andintegration European department administration the have remained of senior same.the the officials Most like deputy the The mayorgovernance. servesinfor hismandate third and many practices and people at important are practices old and traditions the Lukovit like municipality medium-sized a In Traditionalism rules’ for the and ground application. content better represent that opinions and data collect could and subordination and hierarchy administrative bound by arenot draftstage leastthe at The external at consultants documents. similar in developing mastered comparisons draw to ability and perspective larger 177 CEU eTD Collection been such results. not have might there standing political and vision with man this Without initiatives. own out carry to municipalities smaller other and Lukovit in society civil and administration exceptionlimited of points at status capacity, interestand of resources municipal the hand, other the On in Lukovit. by many intreviewees praised was project the heart“of of being „the devotion and hiscontribution Nevertheless success. the of explanation Daskalov.His affiliation withtime the ruling that could be governmentat partof Vladimir Mr. – person one of leadership for example exceptional the first shows it samethe timeandat tourism for sustainable useof if natural resources managed well. But boosting for potential powerful has that initiative local excellent an is Geopark The mayor. Lukovit of leadership the on dependant will rights voting although contested itcould be presumed municipalities other the that even with equal transfer station at its territory were satisfied. The leading position of Lukovit was not leadershipTeteven until wasreluctant lastminutethe sign unless to their demands about establishment exercise association wasacontroversial of the and contentious and the fundingby project the OP Environment.for As discussed forms in Teteven case study the application the consultants with together preparing of charge in is municipality The director. executive becoming subordinate his and chairman becoming municipalities of association landfill in regional role leading took He opportunities. EU the by reinforced The mayor is amanGeopark. with long management experience. His arenow the powers initiated that businessman like also but mayor the like leaders strong has also Lukovit Leadership 178 CEU eTD Collection pronounced in the field research in Teteven. In general the Bulgarian municipalities tend to tend municipalities Bulgarian the general In Teteven. in research field the in pronounced emerged themefrom that casestudy the inexplicitlyAnother strong so Lukovitwas not Economy over environment powers. decision-making council’s municipal implemented andamended in the governance spaceof administration’s approved, expertise and drafted, be to continued still rules environmental The institution. established an within or hoc ad either groups), and NGOs environmental national or local (and environmentalthe field administrationbetween enhanced cooperation to and community evidences strong years. No 4-5 were found MDP the drafting that incontributed process timeframecollection data didallowfor not further insights back dates in that process the the and rule environmental an strictly isnot plan the since done not was it dissertation this within However, experts. external of inputs the of weight and value the investigating has challenged that centralised the administrative rule-making.would have been It worth withmayor). the deputy The case of EPP drafting of MDP was a public and open process in the even (or municipal experts with support) other and information (for cooperation in close cases in both but EPP and MDP draft to hired were Consultants well. duties their although Teteven than appointedthe people even spread in administrationthe perform units integration EU and environmental legal, well organized extent a lesser to has Lukovit municipality. the by coordinated still was which exception is Geopark the for initiative The council. municipal of endorsement the with administration municipal by managed or controlled also are in Lukovit processes rule-making and decisions important All Local administrative “centralism” 179 CEU eTD Collection local municipality’sthe support people tend to position. In samethe case public atthe investments withconcerned attracting is and rather creating new working places. And the municipality the whereas L01) (Interview environment] [of ministry the of priority side a not economic is “the rationale protection/preservation follow latter The positions. opposite at are regional) and (national authorities environmental and municipality the cases similar and endangered in species under NATURA protection 2000areaarepossible. In many and findingsthe foundirreversible that overthrew report the of negative effects on habitats representative) NGO national a of suggestion upon Council Expert Environmental biodiversity.However, an independent study (commissioned by Supremethe of the golf course. The EIA report of the project did not find any significantThe mayorareas. threats environmental andthe affectprotected inexperts Lukovitwere in to favourthecould that developments like issues controversial on takes it side the and administration exampleprovidesThe golf agood project course of the preferences of municipal by not environmentalbacked or aims. protection exemplifies rationale the decision-making of money - and investments arein firstplace attitude This schemes. funding OPs within mainly but value added environmentally preoccupied immediate the with needs of building infrastructure of better with is management Municipal supportive. highly is municipality management) waste and water (in infrastructure environmental new for is allocated money EU When objective. strategic a as it pursue not do municipalities profile, investment the of improvement and gains budget employment, like benefits direct bring not does protection environmental If environment. the damaging potentially are that those even developments new support 180 CEU eTD Collection not a strictly environmental rule) led to public discussions, broad expert debates and two and debates expert broad discussions, public to led rule) environmental strictly a not collaborative rule-making couldprocess be singled Thedrafting out. of MDP (although and municipality way.”(Interview From collected onlythe L06). data that it does real one andapplauding people are reading areport him.There is adiscussion and so should it be likego not this does EIA – someone The is present. not are andprofessions interests age, opinion is of citizensThere after.no [hearing], EIA is wherepeople sought of different commentedpublic the hearing golffor the „the stating project that of course EIA report activethe involvement also people were of of raised. local owner The the newspaper about claims However, initiatives. or campaigns environmental in rather situation financial As mentioned local above mostly interested people are in decisions affect would that their have not any activitiesdoes other besidemanagement. Geopark the it out find could I as far as and Daskalov Vladimir of Nature Unique is municipality by endorsed officially NGO environmental only The municipality. Teteven in ones observed the like traditions similar not There process. in rule-making non-existing practically are initiatives and structures Such in Lukovit. governance and rule–making in environmental role decisive play not does society civil that confirmed research desktop and trips field The Weak civil society weigh muchup too if put on the scales not together withdoes financial issues.” protection (Interview L10). environmental The financially. them affect that council municipal the of decisions in the interested are municipality the in people “The L06). (Interview participantsthe hearing raised report questionsEIA mostly of new about working places 181 CEU eTD Collection powers to the municipalities and the institutional subordination to MoEW and RIEW and MoEW to subordination institutional the and municipalities the to powers andIV confirmed Chapter by fieldthe findings research in the Teteven delegation of legal byguidance andpressure national and regional environmental in Asstated authorities). level dependencyof local the of rules and decisionsthe in general on external (likefactors high shown have rules municipal environmental analysis of document and interviews The Hierarchies 60). 59- Lukovit, (EPP territory municipal the outside sources with pollution municipalities; neighboring with activities common and dialogue of lack municipalities; bigger to migration accelerated authorities; andstate directingprocess; of donors the attention the makes EPP with inthe pointthe analysisstarted the dependence central the on of threats: be could in Lukovit governance environmental local to challenges the on discussion The 6.7. Governance and rule-making factors follow beaten administrative the track. leftadministration’sat avoid discretion, longit to tends and exhaustiveif and procedures because – path decision-making inclusive more a - follow to way a shows It outcomes. wholepractice the municipal population)have driven specialin the and itsprocedure municipality, of development in the interested persons legal and physical and partners itshould beconsulted with interested stakeholders and organizations, economic and social of Regulationsthe Art.36 for (according application to of Regionalthe Development Act public hearings. significanceThe strategic of documentthe and legal the requirements 182 CEU eTD Collection by municipal council or when there is a summer holiday allows longer deadlines. The deadlines. longer allows holiday summer a is there when or council municipal by technical the into account problems.andtakes ittime E.g. needed passing for adecision commanding to than rather and usually approach adjusts its actions local to circumstances asupportivemoneyadhere to it.”The RIEWtendsto (Interviewdo L03). and wewon’t The problems havethrough. been alwaysnever isthere resolved. no happened that It is arequirementis by managed procedure RIEW, the by deputy the mayor and things get recommendationsthe result and requirements are strictly of RIEW followed. “When there administration (and mayorfinedcould get if (Interview they L10).are not kept) As a municipal for deadlines of because or association) landfill regional the join to necessary municipality importanteitherbecauserules,for the are there decision the (e.g. the pass to only machine voting a into turns council municipal Sometimes level. national Municipal authorities, even independentand self-governing, decisions adhere to needto at Directorate. management water regionalIn caseof theirthe region. authority is Riverthe Basin in municipalities to closest authority environmental the is RIEW The done…” be should following the MoEW of letter a with connection “in jurisdiction: their under municipalities RIEWs whichthrough receive acircular from ministrythe letter and disseminate all it to management channelwas passed.”(Interview L03).Thetop-down of communication goes a requirement from ministrythe issue new ordinanceto ordinance andsothe on waste initiated usually when itrequired by law and usually from after orders MoEW. “There was define boundariesthe of local governance. A drafting of ordinance process is program or 183 CEU eTD Collection that claim to be environmental do not represent the community but are individually driven individually are but community the represent not do environmental be to claim that In the discussion on theCommunity NGOs presence in Lukovit it became clearand meetingsbe easily would not by approved mayor. the that the few NGOs association. municipal the Otherwise restrictions and expenses the poses of budgettravels landfill regional the of establishment of case in the like funding external by fostered The communicationcapacity.” (Interview L10). with neighbouring municipalities is better exchange experience andavoid mistakesitis but a question of initiative and financial to valuable very be would municipalities other with communication “such commented commission environmental municipal the of chairman the as However, ordinance. management waste drafting while municipalities other of most as resources own on relied Conversely, EPP. draft the consulting anexternal to itconsultant them with contracted after and municipalities other of example the following been has Lukovit making. rule- in practices own has ones, bigger the especially municipality, Every problems. common of discussion for forum a and municipalities other in practices about information members. with its leaders andother BAMEEcontacts is considered a reliable of source in close still and time long for association the of member a been has experts environmental the of One in Lukovit. process rule-making on effect indirect with network a is BAMEE Networks region. the within networking communication municipal between an and sets RIEW experts example of professional 184 CEU eTD Collection main raisedconcerns by citizens employment.expected wereabout officials publicthe at consultants. But andEIA hearinggolf about developmentcourse opportunity for active civil participation and for dialogue between them, municipal survivaleven about is environmental an than procedure about EIA The protection. or employment about mostly worry municipalities poor and smaller in people However and should be emptied. are used to go to their home is whoof newspaper, deputy the also daughter mayor,and sharedsimilar experience. People complain local the of that, editor and owner The L07). (Interview fordone.” not was example,that something the waste require they or containerproblem a have they Either troubles. have they when municipality the to come They is full administration. municipal the towards positive never were “People complaints. their with mayor the to go would they and government and services the with satisfied not people local by exercised is authorities municipal on pressure social certain Still social life in of terms environmental governance. assumption because findingsthe from casestudy the littleshow capacity and noactive Such a statement61). remainsLukovit, governmental(EPP moresector” awishful non- the have hasto plan the of implementation in the role supportive important administration- municipal the and council municipal the – forces driving leading with the “together that states EPP park. the of establishment for contribution decisive his of manageentities. becauseUnique to of Geopark the Mr. Daskalov Nature was contracted 185 CEU eTD Collection institutional and policy practices in local environmental governance. The first aspect is the is aspect first The governance. environmental local in practices policy and institutional hasLukovit shownsomeof of The case importantaspects Europeanization as a change in Europeanization6.8. Regional Developmentand in national plan strategic fordevelopment. rural between group four neighbouring municipalities initiative in local part take Operationalof to Programme establishment infrastructure, educational on – projects in other and plan assignments.assistedIt Lukovit in of process draftingthe of municipalthe development “Balkan Assist” consultancy preferred hasappearedasthe for municipality the in many application form (Interview L02). analysisdesign,background andscenarios of landfill,the andfilled in project the Ramboll-Miras-Ecoproconsult(2009-2010) consortium has developed the preliminaryone second the in and municipalities of association regional a establish to municipalities landfill provided firstAtthe assistance EPTISA (2008-2009) fiveproject. the stage to was fundedassist under to Lukovit ISPA municipality in preparation of the regional collectionThe technical performedby Ecopack. assistance by international consultancy service is waste separate the outsourced Another Services was signed Aston with Ltd. managementwaste managementinfor waste as in Lukovit Teteven.Thecontract services around revolve issues environmental on relationships economic and main market The Markets 186 CEU eTD Collection to big EU projects. The environmental expert has been preoccupied with them inand them with preoccupied been has expert environmental The projects. EU big to conclusionthe human municipality atthe that leadto projects resources are fully allocated EU on working persons key with interviews conducted the and observations personal The urgency projectsof hasdisturbedEU routine the flow of rule-makingthe process. My enjoys. currently municipality the assistance external of availability with explained be could translations of landfill becamealso coordinator in shortage The in-houseproject. expertise isthere – unified nostructured environmental unitand the expert on English language administrativethe Teteven to Compared MoEW. environment units at related to are less Environment for Policy Cohesion Directorate the Environment– OP of authority managing the from officials ministry and experts, national and international with cooperation close in landfill regional the for forms application all of preparation in involved directly became administration –young experts with English good and modern education. of them Two in municipal people new brought has institutions EU and national with work The Regional DevelopmentFund and Cohesion the Fund). European (the funds EU the of financial contribution the without possible been have managementsystem in compliancebe introduced and not withEUrulesthatwould hasto and impacts thequality on of life municipality. of the A and waste modern water landfill cyclewater aregigantic projects integrated inthe and projects of terms resources http://ope.moew.government.bg/en/management. 33 Environment OP from funding for eligible investments new of scope Funded by Regional Cohesion - DevelopmentEuropean the Fund the and Fund 33 . The regional. The 187 CEU eTD Collection Teteven in Teteven of terms environmental rules and rule-making Some new features processes. in drawn governance environmental local of picture the completes municipality Lukovit Summary6.9. violated in otherwise many ways in Bulgaria. of implementationnewof practice precedent of EU rules of biodiversity protection environmentalvictory of andconcerns arguments over economic serves interests as a NGOs backedby Supreme Environmentalthe Council, Expert hence by The MoEW. the national the municipality and by the backed developers the between confrontation of case golfthe development about course The EIAprocedure in NATURA 2000areabecame a Bulgaria. against procedures infringement initiated Commission landfilling became recentlytopic hot after funding for them was ensured andtheEuropean regional and management waste for rules The landfills. regional for requirements EU the reflects that programme management waste regional with comply to has Lukovit municipal developmentplanThe new wastemanagement (pp.53-54). in programmeand of (p.24) programme protection environmental in both rules local in priority main of Europeanization isaspect institutionalisation the Another as of EU-funded projects ambient of or program air programme. protection environmental new of drafting the initiate to left time no with practically alsoHe was association. landfill regional taskedof director executive as with position official an preparation got he addition of trainings for eco inspectors by the end of 2010 and 188 CEU eTD Collection which makes their coordination more difficult. The legal expert is a lawyer on contract and environmental experts andintegration legalEU issuesas well as isin not structured The two Teteven. environmental, on work– rule-making for environmental on working different administration municipal The units on tasks assigned to themLukovit. in by the mayor praised andacknowledgedbyas achievement respondents the in environmental protection – initiative Geopark the mentoring in prominent was Daskalov Vladimir businessman another of role The businesses. other and big hotels two of owner – businessman leading a is council municipal to commission environmental the of chairman the addition In will that managementaffect waste the systems neighbouring of four other municipalities. development this lead to powers additional them gave project landfill regional EU big the and investments environmental the Exactly mandate. third in their serving mayor deputy hasIn Lukovit been established municipalstrong a leadership in facethe of mayor and pollution. noise polluting industries main although the Danube from RiverSofia road to poses air and establishedThese favourable by threatened conditionshighly Geopark. nature arenot management, andonly proper not NATURA2000 three the areas but also newly the river the andKarlukovo canyon of Zlatna Panega.Ingeneral many areas need protection landscapesin Lukovitmunicipality likecomplex treasures karst the other in are there conditions different arequite in and mountain of forest andTeteven Instead Lukovit. andspecifics justify doinga case study in a neighbouring municipality. The natural 189 CEU eTD Collection and the EPP wait their turn to be assigned a consultant Only L01). (Interview to to theirwaitturn waste the EPP and the programme protection air ambient the result a As rules. environmental of implementation and drafting enforcement, rule like tasks traditional more handle to them allow big environmentaltwo and waste management) investment water on not does projects limitedcapacity of environmental duties (the overloadedwith operational urgent experts developmentplan becauseare already thefirstexpired out-of-date two in The 2010. municipal in the provisions the and programme protection environmental programme, than municipal actors other administration. rules strategic like The management waste the of obligations and rights authority, on rules constitutive contain importantly most and cleanness, management waste on and on green system. Their provisions arevery detailed The legal environmental rules collected in are ordinances three – on public and order protection. environmental in interest and participation community limited the underlines also but awareness environmental pupils’ raising of initiative a high school at established isThe ecocenter of Peace Corps onegood with support the involvedin managementthe in butnot of Geopark any rule-makingbroader processes. be to claimed is Daskalov Vladimir by led and sponsored is Nature” “Unique NGO main The participation. public active such to up measure not does Lukovit initiatives. and projects in environmental history successful and long have in Teteven NGOs local The in Teteven. areengagedexperts with environmental inand issues6 experts EU unitscomparedtwo to uncertainty more increates provision the that of servicesthe Only (Interview L05). three 190 CEU eTD Collection environmental programme. protection Among challenges the ahead is, example, for of drafting process of a new the encouragingbecome people and equal NGOsto inpartners rule-makingthe procedures. economic and concerns andpotential the of brings interests all by together actors richthe their environmental resources, account nature into takes governance that for strategy overarching lacks Municipality investments. infrastructure environmental to allocated are resources The limited. is rules environmental strong implement local In general,the capacity administrationof and civil society in and craft Lukovitto habitats the anddeteriorate speciesin area. under 2000 protection Natura was scientifically that project administration agolf course supported proven could that vaccum priorities have level reachedthe of local application they a butalso created are that these almost work experts exclusively leasttwo currently at on them. My personal impressions experts possessThe sizeinspectors). eco andcomplexity of these projects required new people and big potentialpoliticalinvested cycle,are and- in water on-going there projects (e.g. other training of and expert – resources All municipality. the in located project if landfill regional grand guidedthe rightly of environmentalThe Europeanization policy (rules and in practices) isTeteven marked by by senior staff. The landfill. regional EU management programmeof isassignment asa the part prepared of consultantthe for in rule enforecement or opposition in fields like biodiversity protecion where the where protecion biodiversity like fields in opposition or enforecement rule in governance 191 CEU eTD Collection 192 CEU eTD Collection In addition, practices and governance arrangement from other municipalities in the region in the municipalities other from arrangement governance and practices addition, In municipalityanddiscussions governance atregional context referredthe to butlevel, too. their hierarchical on perspectives get to and partnershipscontacted relations with Dobrich municipal office, and regional governor’s RIEW the the the E.g. media one. were district/regional andgovernance at shedlevel, light actors on level one above the multi-level governance also because of regionalthe interviewsperspective. conducted The August-Septemberand 2009 July-Septemberprovide 2010 valuable evidences about the The size governmental of and scope arrangements observed during the field trips in characteristics common for many city European municipalities. medium – between 10000 and 60000, and bigmedium –between -above 60000,and 10000 and 60000inhabitants). 34 cities and municipalities big in environment of in governance insights with LEG of analysis the provides municipality VarnaVarna covering andDobrich both regions. choice The of Dobrich as urban publicregional of inspectorate RIEW The presented. governor, healthis -are inlocated governmental ispicture alsoricher because in Dobrich regional authorities – regional The college. a including institutions educational and cultural more life, social more a biggercity, a regional moreDobrich of region.centre industry,There is concentrated DobrichThe caseof municipality iscomplex more cases.Dobrich than the previous two is 7.1. Introduction to the case urbanmunicipality of Dobrich study Case VII. http://www.ombudsman.bg/municipality/groups/493 (small municipalities - up to 10000 population, 34 and on the other hand, with comparable data of its urban 193 CEU eTD Collection airport but, on the otherhighway,connections - and harbour transport internationalgood are hand,there one hand, it attracts manywhich is the third biggestcity in Bulgaria and an importantisharbour twofold because, on people that move BulgariatoeconomicThe close in location near after Varna. centre North-Eastern Varna life, work or study comprisesisof Dobrich. only biggest second town the town of The the territory the Danubeof the plain. part Plateau, Dobrudzha municipality The has a special inthe -it status terrain flat on Bulgaria of North-East the in situated is municipality urban Dobrich Dobrich 7.2. ofBulgarian as acase municipality environmental governance. acase presents of areas investigatingany nature without precious urban the local populationof and industry (even withoutheavy industry)small at urbanized territory from all cases only here an ambient isprogram inair protection place. concentration The higher if we compare therules produced–ordinances, plans strategies, and programs. E.g. ingeneral capacity administrative and larger also is administration municipal the Lukovit, and Teteven than bigger much is municipality As office. lawyers’ municipal at sitting while administration the at observations direct of week one including field the in spent biggest the numberIn Dobrich case conducted interviews were of andmost time the was wind energy parks, Shabla with wetlands).the of somecollectedthem environmental of inspots – were hot conflicts (Kavarna with the 194 CEU eTD Collection The social capital in the city diminished critically after 1990. Many educated people that people educated Many 1990. after critically diminished city the in capital social The hundredsflats,of neglected infrastructureand overall feeling of being end atthe of world. whereas in betony the complexes urbanization the itsshows ugly face with blocksthe of mostly located area is direction.The greenareasare inin theopposite the city parks with endit thecentral one connects citylarge zoneandpedestrian at The park. industrial Bulgarianthe for Dobrich Even abig standards is town a quite place. city The iscentre a well developed as well as the tourism due tothe proximity of the seaside. and services trade program Dobrich, The transport, (Air 4). are protection status property idleare capacity becauseof rest andlack the of investments, legal problems and unclear industry. biggestof those Out factories onlyfull at 35 %work capacity, 30%at minimum engineering and industry light industry, beverage and food of mainly comprise activities of 1990’sandthe processes privatization the nowafter and restructuring industrial technical ininfrastructure industrial bigof the wereclosed factories Most down inzones. called “thebreadbasketof Bulgaria” andhas well developed industrial complex with good is Dobrich in of located centre It abigregion of centre (oblast). the agricultural region, The population ofmunicipality is about 100000inhabitants 36 35 territory urbanized highly with and municipality) The municipality there. sq.km.(relatively an of 109 area spreads on small for a Bulgarian http://www.dobrich.bg/index.php?s=sc&id=140. The official homepage of DobrichUrban Municipality - http://www.dobrich.bg. 35 . 36 . The city is administrative is city The . 195 CEU eTD Collection Swiss-Bulgarian Birdsthe DirectiveisDirective.projectIt andHabitat along situated Suha Reka River.Under a a Nature andOutside17). Dobrich in thereis thenorth aNATURA 2000 area designatedAnimals both under Protectionecological (preventing pollution from and industry)transport importance (EPPDobrich, Centre – a unique central publicone bioclimaticrecreational, of park (ensuring fresher air) and aesthetic zoo - was suburban municipality and aretwo In the parks areas. There protection nature no are there cleaning-up noproblems”. creates (Interview D01) one with gully that only one bigrivers, bodies, bigwater any have not do we region, (Dry River) that crosses the town from south north.to “In regards waters to we are poor artificial lake in thefromkm. 15 public Stozher, theof invillage municipality city.rural Dobrich park of Interritory the and at Dobrich constructed be to there isplanned landfill new a why is That are territory. small notthe and anypopulation the of size the big water bodies with boundaries municipalities.the of the In this sense management waste is onemajor issue given exception of one municipalities population butthe and industry are factors with impacts beyond the smallisenvironment. rather The territory average Bulgarian the to compared The environmental problemsin Dobrich andresources aredefined by its urban 7.3. Environmental context – resources and problems young people who after goingwith touniversity or abroad nevertogether came left back. socialism the during life cultural good relatively enjoyed and jobs had ɚ small tributary Dobrichka to the river Suha Reka 196 CEU eTD Collection handle the problem in to a long runbut previousthe 69) government it. did support not (EPP, project BGN million 7 over developed has municipality The D06). (Interview sustainable and solution in cases of high damages waters like flooded warehousesoccur budgetthe for it is allocated between 70 000and 100000BGN.Thecleaning-up is not a in Annually administration. municipal for challenge another is River Dobrichka the of gully quarter of the town which Unlikeis Teteven and Lukovit Dobrich has wellmore developed sewage system and only one distant still has partial problems. The from burningmaintenance medical waste. of andsome time with hospitalthe water, agoabout because unpleasantof strong the odour problems and dogs stray dumps, micro like problems visible more about signals send and citizens.the for Aradiojournalist from a local explainedradio people areconcerned that visible not are problems these because part in and lands private on especially responsibility such aproblem about becauseconcerns inis soil part protection onlynot municipal SWOT analysismunicipalbut EPP the of intervieweesservants and other did not express contamination with lead near accumulator the factory is evenas aweakness input the Soil contamination. soil the like hidden are somehow industry the with problems some anymore.There is are there (Interview onlyD01) from automobilethe dust transport.” production not is there polluters, industrial big any have don’t “we that claim the Despite about 100 species: deer, lamas,hosts moufflons,It Zhivkov. bears, buffalosTodor and manyleader birds. communist Bulgarian the of residence former the in built 197 CEU eTD Collection sits at nationalsits at leveland EU energy institutions efficiency. relatedto There is a municipalShe policy. this promoting actively very is Nikolova Detelina Mrs. mayor The Bulgaria. in municipalities leading the of one is Dobrich policy change climate of field the In 37 Euros millions 15 least planand69) in (EPP, theinterviews (Interviewaction D02, D06 D01, and D11).Until 2013 at programme’s Protection Environmental in underlined projects priority the of one is Stozher of invillage municipality rural Dobrich of territory the at landfill regional new a of fundedfor BAMEE project and Dobrich has implemented it. The project for construction municipalof computers environmentalwas developed Theproduct underexperts. an EU- flowswaste down track could by that manysoftware indicators and itisthe a connected to installed is landfill the At infiltrate. and groundwater of monitoring for station a and station meteorological a is There waste. household of landfilling for requirements EU the and landfilling thus operation capacity years. nextThe landfill5-6 the secured for meets In June landfill 2009thereconstructed territory the of municipalitythe at was putinto additional for company the task dealing with cleaning-up of citythe (Interview D11). an is summer in the streets the of watering and spraying why is That cultivated. is measuredThe surrounding (APP,38). agricultural lands when of dust aresources the land were thresholds the above concentrations higher quarter industrial in the and connections because despite decline the in thepolluting industrial production along the transport public to healththreats and Air acutest environmentthe of pollution one poses in citythe http://www.dobrich.bg/index.php?s=sc&id=1036. 37 will be invested in construction and supply of equipment. 198 CEU eTD Collection Commission for Territorial Cohesion Policy (COTER-V) Policy Cohesion Territorial for Commission Commissionthe Environment,the for Climate change and Energy andthe (ENVE-V) – Regions the of Committee the of commissions two of member a is mayor the level EU committeesOP Human of Development Resources and OPAdministrative Capacity. At National Board of Energy Efficiency Fund to the Ministry of Economy; of the monitoring region. At nationalin the level governance she environmental isin a memberrole of important thean – Board of Directorsmunicipalities the of of NAMRB andassociation of the landfill regional of chairwoman a as position holds She well. as levels governance a seniormanagement municipality.the at position She is acting actively at other municipality previousunderthe mayor. In lastthe 15years from 2010 she was 1995 to on administrationmunicipal at serving of record a long has She mandate. second in her serves Nikolova Detelina Mrs. municipality. urban Dobrich in institution established an is mayor The startingMayor fromLocal actors7.4. lower ranks andsector. public the in emissions making energy in of efficiency area the andher renewable theharmfuldecrease energy to sources partnership Bulgarian-Norwegian for wayproject a in 2009-2011 implementing is municipality toThe administration. secretarymunicipal at sitting experts of team special a of establishment found of energy efficiency theprogrammeA for energy project period for 2008-2013. the efficiency 38 . 199 CEU eTD Collection 38 sheand hercolleagues that from of local unitthe the peopleare aware whoare the inexperts Bulgaria member anda of BAMEE. She Board sharedthe of in an interview municipal leading environmental the of isone unit the of head The area. own his/her in expertandone inspectors 4 unit,of community green areas. Every inspector covers ahead of consists unit environmental The years. 15 than more with one other the and 10 years in service asmunicipalseniorenvironmental two servants of the – one experts the with at looks if one clear becomes This option. good a still is servant municipal a becoming many not There are alternativesin for so environmental privatework sector, to experts Municipal administration municipality. the for working them keep to difficult it makes which problem a is experts municipal of salaries low the opinion her In quality. air the landfill, new and the of construction the and management waste – problems environmental won the elections in 2009. In the central funding with little but success.Theshort “hardships” of municipality ended after GERB interview with the mayorMany (Interview and D06). were prepared project proposals concentrated submitted for she pointed out atwas water and two environment of minister the of and coalition ruling the of party one of electorate the where region the in municipalities small of expense at funds EU for ignored with 2007-2009 coalitionthe governmentandin Dobrich urban municipality was relationships totally difficult caused affiliation latter The GERB. party new the of support formerBulgarian KingSimeon andthen secondterm for the she II was elected with the the of party ruling the with was she First time. with changed orientation political Her http://cormembers.cor.europa.eu/cormembers.aspx?critId=2019883. 200 CEU eTD Collection decisions on transport. He shared that the structure of of commissionsthe structure the shared He that atmunicipaldecisions transport. on and discussions the to contributes he mostly and job this for time little has he that shared He protection. in environmental expertise no with business transportation own its andenvironment. infrastructure The chairman of commissionthe Mr. Angel runsTabakov commissionthe subject separately butis covered not is in charge of transport, environmental the cases other in the found As it Lukovit. and inTeteven than number in bigger twice thus and 41 are municipality urban Dobrich of councillors municipal The Municipal council association. landfill regional the of work the of coordination the with together landfill is there aspecial project employedperson deal only to with its management higherthe specialization and size administration of the in regional the for Dobrich. E.g. withclose coordination environmental environmental and on experts because projects of In contrast the to cases of Teteven and Lukovit this unit and experts do notwork in such a onlyare although there few partlyenvironment projects to related and with small budgets. Projects” and “Programmes called is projects integration European with dealing unit The densely of Dobrich. territory populated theunitis of with management occupation waste because of urban the characteristics and main the her to According best.” the simply be would it police, municipal a was handle environmentalpeople to of shortage the problems. “We need more people. If there several solution,bestmayor or alternativethe solutions. Sheexpressed herthe about concern to suggest to is role principle Their solutions. find to constantly work and problems 201 CEU eTD Collection Regional governor government until the summer of 2009 when previous the situationthe becameunder the opposite). authorities central vis-à-vis disgrace” “in and minister prime funds few mayorthe EU of (the from elected was one political the party of current the to access low and isolation political the about including municipality the in stake at issues main the of grasp good showed chairman its priorities and projects on decision-making Even commissionwho isthe veterinarian doctor. very contributed little the real to something specific hemunicipal me directed either colleague to the to or senior expert colleagueswere from municipal the council. In all cases when question the was about this institution because of appointmentthe of a new governor and deputy whogovernors with thechanges elections after the a sound infooting at wererisingget 2009 hopes to city.” communicationHe considersthe with Regional officeGovernor’s as weak although ecology, illegalto dumps, gully the of Suha reka[Dobrichka],which are specific related for our mostly citizens, the by requests examine to respectively sessions, council municipal by come mayor’s prepared the by team, municipalthe that give to departments; opinions at proposals the at look to mostly, is, role “Our matters. environmental in authority commissionthe municipal that twice repeated Tabakov isMr. experts. a supportive the to rules environmental main of changes for initiative the leave and informatively and they there) mostly person of and the drafts proposals administrationhear the environmenton be most is knowledgeable the veterinarian considered(the to doctor members happenedThe other commission yet.the it has of not topics, are alsoexperts not council was inherited by previousthe mandate. Even if the isthere separate atendency to 202 CEU eTD Collection water management) and with guidelines from the ministries. the from guidelines with and management) water or waste on (e.g. documents environmental strategic national with complies administration medium-termare and goalsspecial that without environment.reference to The strategic own its by led also is administration regional The work. governor’s of driver the are legislation environmental under obligations and responsibility powers, of framework The interviews regional the administration at made clear legalthe that rules in the environmental state policy of Environmental 16 protection Act). (Art. Protection of implementation for region the in municipalities the of activities the coordinate To 3. region’s territory (e.g. of RIEW Varna) concerning state environmental policy; executive of the work the authorities and theircoordinate administrationTo the 2. at region; implementationensure the To environmental1. of state the policyof territory the the at responsibilities: following the with vested is governor Regional municipalities. rural Dobrich and urban Dobrich the including municipalities, 8 comprises region Dobrich The which was informative of the potential and restrictions of regional governor’s powers. of of investedGreen Dobrudzha anon-goinghave network I project with, come across is it powers legal the Beside rule-making. regional and local in involvement real and Dobrichstudy this is to ground authority agood and drawconclusionsits about powers in administration governor’s the of presence the Here Lukovit. and Teteven of studies The role of regional in environmentalgovernor discussedgovernance in wasnot the case 203 CEU eTD Collection for instance,for French the regional regional The authorities. administration is beneficiary of The Bulgarian regional of authoritiestheir areamong kind poorest the in EU compared to, administrations. nationalof governmenteffectivelystructures andexercise assess control actsof the local andaims scope the environmentalcontrols of strategic regional both that rules, so only legalthe rules arescrutinized hand, withinOn the other RIEW this procedure. thesis in the studied rules the From level. regional and local at rule-making environmental regulating when employed is prestige mere only not that so weight additional authority regional this to gives monitoring legal This law. the with conformity for councils municipal of decisions the review to empowered is it and region the in law of rule the of coordinativethese and facilitationIn addition to functions regional asaguardian governor problem was clarified and whatshould be done further decided.” (Interview D03). mayors theirthe had considerations and ameeting wesetup with RIEW where the meeting]in connection with illegal dumps closure and redirecting of Some waste. the of becould called land boards) chaired by regional“Last time wasa governor. [there jointmeetings municipalities concerned the of authorities (e.g. state and other RIEW or municipalities they on usuallyagree could not regional the to turn Insuch governor. cases the problem real a is there or landfill regional new with case the in like municipality one of boundaries the beyond goes and importance regional of is issue the When role. national and EUfundsbudget access to for regional remainsgovernor coordination the Especially in areas like management waste where municipalities enjoy and powers broad 204 CEU eTD Collection environment in general. In the end because of administrative and legal restrictions the aims the restrictions legal and administrative of because end the In general. in environment provide general the public to information access with better to on natural andresources on and protection environmental with concerned all authorities among platform coordination aims achieved the than much were The broader results. original idea create was to and International stations the CollegeThe tourism). Dobrichinitial (because eco of the hunting 4 state pupilsthe of (because inspectorate and game targeted), thatwere breeding Agricultural the (because education agro-ecological of the Institute protection), Dobrudzhan the inspectorate, health public regional and RIEW the municipalities, developmentin eight the part policy. project: the Dobrich took region partners 17 regional and environmental for region pilot a as chosen was region Dobrich level. regional and national at authorities among cooperation better introduce to and policies 39 Dobrudzha of Green Network yearsIn the 2009-2010Dobrich regional administration was implementing the project will be reform itwill D03). (Interview be better” The regional inauthorities especially regret. Europe, in veryFrance, are powerful. If there middle, with the big label, we coordinate but we the in don’t haveare the we financial and leverage...ministries, and our to municipalities the by made is Everything policy. make for any salaries,not studies unlikecars, and municipalities. the We have don’t funds to extensively work “We only projects. have on budget activitiesfor our – maintenance,to governor regional the enables administration small the nor budget limited the Neither Environment. OP of any under funding beneficiary direct a isnot it fact In OPs. few very http://www.eco-dobrudzha.org/bg/index. 39 . In Bulgaria 5 regions were chosen to test different 205 CEU eTD Collection 40 learnt have I What existing. still partners active as them mentioned not did administration municipal the and in public active not were they since down closed them considered they discoverexist that natural sciences because to was strange I andIt ecology. The Ecological club Dobrich iswas founded 15year aNGOwith by history.It inteachers isas NGOleaders. onlypeople to referred two professionalare where there environmental officesNGOs with and staff in Dobrich there inand powers a big city like Dobrich such a conclusion weighs even Unlikemore. Varna presence instrong withoutNGOs, rule-making Considering process. the scale of interests overall impression lowthe profile and facts pointat the civil of the bysociety The represented NGOs. of initiatives isolated and campaigns some mentioned respondents The media. collectedfrom was interviewsthe data Most atmunicipal administration and regional is nothingconcerning wecould talkbecause about they their work were a new NGO. haveend interviewed I NGO leaders.only The oneexplained second two of one there that the In NGOs. environmental of presence strong any encounter not did I fieldvisitmy first during fact In Lukovit. or in Teteven than richer isnot in Dobrich NGOs the of map The NGOs activities them on information availableaccess to the on andpotential on natural effectsresources of human of creation an information to were reduced areas, system increased forpublic protected Ibid. 40 . 206 CEU eTD Collection high school pupilsclean-up parkand the green to areas butusually before elections. “She different green partiesnew environmental two consequentiallyclubs. wasaparty She coordinator for two (working lastlyof leader and time long for activist environmental been has She in manyinterviews. NGO for the Greens). She VesselinaleaderMrs. NGO asa BerbenkovawasThe other appeared name and aleader of a said to organise mostly production. food becauseof lands still most private owners andthe areininterested not clean ecological productive agricultural mostthe of regions in Bulgaria butit didany get is one not support which Dobrudzha, in testing soil in capacity develop to attempted club the moment migration corridors of birds and in elaboration of wind power energy strategy. At one 41 breasted Goose ( Animals.in part countingthe with students ittook of Together populationthe of Red- and of Nature Protection for Centre the of establishment the on donors Swiss the and invited.often are Beside cleaning-up routine club actions the with municipalityworked the in the region. In projects where the involvement of youth is required the club and its leader The club is very supporters. capable mobilizing of youth andthe from teachers schoolsthe education environmentalGerasimov Mr. in is regionaleducation. at the alsoinspector on inspectorate Dobrich.The clubAccording tries to distancefollow Day) that the international campaigns Earth the for (e.g. environmental calendar. itselfmany in to involved actively is club himthe that is from Gerasimov Gerasim Mr. thetheleader their from politics club and tohas develop at in leastthe narrow niche20 membersof and 150 Endangered species on Endangered IUCN Red List (http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/141456/0.) Branta ruficollis ) 41 . In 2009 the club took part in clubIn 2009the part . discussionsthe took of the 207 CEU eTD Collection association– BAMEE – an important national – animportantassociation– for local BAMEE network environmental governance is The seniora boardPetkova membermunicipal of Teodora nationalanother Mrs. expert acclaimed by municipal servants. achievementsassistanceamongother resulted in of Planpreparation Dobrich 2020 their and 1990’s of end inthe consultants international best the of some brought Rosenov the of RegionsCommittee the to commissions two of member a as NAMRB by nominated was mayor of the EU. Themayorsconsequent deputy chairpersonsTwo were of NAMRB. of Board the The present years. 15 last good the in level national at active connectionstraditionally been have Dobrich of mayors The of National associations’ membership the previous landfill. mayornearby the from bags plastic with littered constantly is Mr.which Dobrich-Varna Luchezar like professional the agricultural high school which did a cleaning-up of of road the part initiatives in these active most the are schools The Day. Earth the around partners other or municipality the of campaigns periodical are there addition, In society. environmental NGOs in Dobrich and Dobrich common most region of are the organizedfeatures the existing the of focus narrow or activities occasional the affiliation, political of stamp The D06). (Interview initiatives.” their in them help We activities. important have Maybe vegetation. the because of they taking care are young organization, they not do They deal NGO. with cleaning-up of spacebetweengardens, of the blocksthe of flats, city GreenParty for the the of establishand later decidedcoordinator to was a a separate 208 CEU eTD Collection landfill site in the village of Stozher the media facilitated the communication between the between communication the facilitated media the Stozher of village the in site landfill communicationIn onecase regardingissue hot the local between of regionalactors. and decision-making environmental influences it position such In citizens. the and administration, publicother businesses utility management (waste contractor, operators) municipal between intermediary an and life municipal in factor be could media that of influential mostThe interviewthe Radio one Dobrudzha, at local showed radiostations, media. even are There journalists specialized environmental on (Interview D01). topic regional newspapers, local cableregional and TV, stations branchesradio of national small the Lukovitto andinCompared Teteven towns this regional two are there centre citizens. the and municipality the by also recognized Dobrich in power real a is media The Media smalled municipalities (Interviews for practices good provides that municipality Bulgarian leading a as mentioned was local governance building traditions and Even practices. good on up in Teteven Dobrich takingDobrich leaders lead are of the the in areaof the environmental governance and informationthe system claimed DEPOINFO” Farfrom nationalthe Petkova. centres Mrs. with then and capacity the strengthening…of further for project the with first way, good DobrichIn acquis. the environmental of resultsimplementation for level local at ofcapacity theadministrative projects found strengthening a on fertile consultants international with projects two implemented BAMEE soil. “BAMEE influencedespecially in thefield capacity of building among environmental and cooperation us experts. in a very Ɍ 07 and T08). 209 CEU eTD Collection registration and breeding territory of atthe of municipality.the dogs management, greensystem waste on on and city.the of one A regulates one fourth the main three more ordinancesone general – with environmental on a chapter one protection, periodicallycompletely or updated new like ordinance the on green system. Thereare rules, municipal legal of system developed well a possesses municipality unban Dobrich Formal7.5.1. legal rules 7.5. Main environmental rules (Interview D06). dumps illegal the of closure after waste of landfilling on mayors different of positions the about information broadcasted it when case inlike the radio the through other each to talking start also could parties political different from Mayors problem. the solving defend positions and opposite media the findsthat becomes actor the common forground company providing service.the In some instances themunicipality and contractor the like managementblamewaste to people tend municipality the even thereis a though Whenview affectedparties. the of issue the isof very sensitive and affectspoints almost all citizens different present to and citizens from signals investigate to position a in is Media again.would claim water the on turned radio the that radiothe with complainto supplywater about and supply after water is they restored call would citizens The supplier. water regional with happens facilitation communication Similar D06). (Interview mayor.” the with meeting for asking and municipality the in calling of instead us, to call to often more prefer They media. the us- through meeting mayor.“And andthe intermediary, again the wewere protestors because even they set a 210 CEU eTD Collection ordinance. Beside these two ordinances anew ordinance. green Besidesystem two these ordinance has introduced Rules of green onprotection areas during is works construction regulated in public order management oils, and end-of-lifemotor – batteries accumulators, vehicles, etc. masses.andearth waste thedangerous waste regulates VIII Chapter construction management the dealsover Public with VII thecontrol Law. Chapter of Procurement of ordinanceManagementthe VI chapter byand ina company with accordance contracted solidof The treatment is household waste provided according Lawon Waste to entities. legal and individuals the of obligations and rights the on also but administration contains detailed rules and onpowers obligations of the mayor and municipal and since then amended many times increaseto the sanctions with its latest amendments. It quantity the and dangerousness The ordinanceof waste. was passed for firsttime in 1998 companies. They 5000 BGNfor illegal could reachupto disposal of waste depending on for particularly sanctions higher much imposes ordinance management waste The sanctions arerelatively The low in BGN. rangeof 100-300 the companies. private and citizens to but administration to only not applied be could rule municipal one how example one is This iced. are sidewalks when or snowfall heavy during prescribing obligation forvarious managers and owners of buildings clean to up the snow environmental and health effectlike leaves burningtree and 48is tyres.waste, Art. of adverse with activities of prevention on rules IV in Chapter contains environment The ordinance public on maintenance order, of andmunicipal protection and property 211 CEU eTD Collection passed by a decision of municipal council. It states two main principles – balanced – principles main two states It council. municipal of decision a by passed The governance program of Dobrich urban municipality for period the 2007-2011was governanceMunicipal programme 2007-2011 The region should be described and whatis envisaged for it.” (Interview D04). justification. the in be should Dobrich of plan the projects, write we When them. without financed directly by Internationalthe for (e.g. College Dobrich) thatapply for fundsthe under OPsprogrammesor EC. “We follow themis this provided in some of the long-term [theplans” (Interview D02) but also for actors other programs] becauseadministration because”in every applicationfunding], [for in every form isthere a question we could not do inthose Teteven andto Lukovit.areas compared They are importantfor municipal also rules complex are more The strategic and advancedleast at in number andsubject rules Strategic 7.5.2. emergency cases. exceptional investmentcases of approved after consideringopinion project expert inor green system.Cuttingand removing of andtree shrub vegetation is permitted only in which decides plans on andinvestmentand objectsterritories for of city’sthe projects land planning and town on council in municipal expert part take to areas green community mayor, appointingthe latter the –landscape experts architects and experts in other ordinancethe of 2 governing the Art. municipal arethe authorities to Pursuant council and sanctionsdestroying level for the accordingvegetation of to of damage (Interview D11). managementrules of on green systemandprotection shrubs- “trees, and grass” and the 212 CEU eTD Collection prevention.“Indeed wedidin it way. theproper By topics,separate for every target topic urbanization,ecology, social affairs,spiritual affairs,and urban safety and crime leadership of mayorthe were formed: economic 6working on groups development, Alabamastate applied. gave was The consultants initial the momentum. underthe Later Auburn, municipality American the of plans long-term in experience drafting the process decision-making proper forexperts the involving process all interestedthe parties. In the long-term development programme asearly as in was highly2002. It praised a by up municipal drew that in Bulgaria municipalities few the of one is municipality urban Dobrich Plan Dobrich 2020 population informationthrough campaigns, and workshops tables. round with NGOsisactivity awareness-raising the cooperation with reference to of the only the whereas village) in Bogdan waste household solid for landfill the of cell new a mainlyare mandate 2007-2011 focused onwaste management entry (e.g. intoof operation The main public priorities transport. municipal of the governmentenvisaged for the trolleybus with and pollutants bigindustrial no with – environment clean relatively with energy systems inDobrich program publicthe the isAccording to characterised sector. closed cyclesand energy, increase of water areasandgreen application of of common ecosystems, decreasingof environmental damages, application with approach of integrated environmentalthe by account intoshould rational take protection management of urban in particular development sustainable The development. sustainable and development 213 CEU eTD Collection strategy integrated developmentfor strategy determined with presentmunicipalthe development programme from 2005 as“extremely importantdocumentin full coherence with the municipalthe environmentallength to The MDPrefers at protection. protection is3: Ensuring there goal infrastructure of sustainable activities onwastemanagementand specificallyenvironment. priority Under the to 2 Development and modernization of local mediaAlso andin factors. mainthe 4 planning priorities is there none dedicated environmental main of terms in situation current of description only is there environment On needs. investment urgent most the listed practically administration municipal separately. Since the visionthe place a second and andthat priorities for environment discussed are not plan forms the basisenvironmental that merged topic with protection urban infrastructure developmenttaking for further investmentsDevelopment backOne step Plan compared2007-2013. Dobrich (MDP) to 2020 plan is funded under OPsMany findings and priorities of Dobrich 2020 planthe were transferredinto the Municipal Municipal Development Plan whole plan is introducing of medium-short-term, term and long-term 2020. goals upto the of bigbenefit One environment. the of parameters qualitative and quantitative the of green system; development a workingof new management waste system and improvement vision forDobrich as a green and clean city and the three main priorities: development of a balance a good is protection between background conditions, struck definition of the environmental detailing pages the In D01). (Interview program.” a of development for model good a was it think participation…I public wide with done was it that think brainstorming,groups, with proposals… respectivethe priorities in differentfields but I 214 CEU eTD Collection cooperation with Dobrich rural municipality or with local actors is not on the on is not actors local with or municipality rural Dobrich with cooperation contamination soils the accumulator of factory is around marked as a weakness).The biodiversityis reference there to no soil for instanceor protection (although the inbe addressed a5-yearThe issues reflect to period urban the of Dobrich character – priorities as a result of themain SWOT analysisThe are definedrecreation. as: active and work fulfilling for conditions with city clean and green as Dobrich about plan 2020 Dobrich of message main the reiterates vision formulated The socio-economicdevelopment, environmental of and management.components of waste of analysis legislation, international and national of review contains It company. utility regional Varna, publicBlack SeaBasin health and inspectorate, local directorate water RIEW unit, environmental municipal the from inputs with company private a to contracted The programme wasdrafted and passed by municipalthe council in autumnwas 2009. It EnvironmentalMunicipal Protection Programme mobilizing social partners. andengine development of coordinator and of professionalthe associations and NGOsas as administration municipal of role the stresses plan The 70). Dobrich, (MDP plan” x x x x x x elaborating of noise maps. improvement condition of supplythe of water and sewagesystem; higher effectiveness management of waste activities; improvement of the condition of the gully of Dobrichka river; finalizing and enrichment greensystem;of the quality; air ambient of improvement 215 CEU eTD Collection have to update theirair update quality have to programmes because Bulgaria has infringed the EU cities big 30 that showed Bulgaria in policy quality air in development recent most The implementation measuresof the program. of the the and quality air ambient about media mass the through informed periodically public the and drawn be should territory municipal the at polluters industrial all implementationover control ensure have of to programs’ measures. addition In a map of dustduringof construction and gardening The plan works. municipal that states legal rules of fine thecontent inparticulates of dust decrease ambientair andreduction of sources the measures household ofthe emissions aim heating.The other reduction at from transport from emissions the of and pollution industry of reduction at aims plan The document. ambientair quality. action The program standsthe as plana separate to 2009-2014 municipalitythe whichsection and avery short is forprogram actual improvement the of assessmentsituation, review qualityof the current the of of ambient airof on the territory levels of pollutants in ambient containsair period 2009-2014.It the for a background municipalities in Bulgaria is requiredpass such to larger a programme onair the qualityof reduce to most like municipality urban Dobrich Act). Quality Air Ambient the of para.1 (Art.27, air ambient in substances harmful for norms established the exceeds emissions of amount total the where municipalities for obligatory is program quality air The Air quality programme municipalities. both of initiatives and policies of intersection of point environmental managementThe waste agenda asanopportunity. is onlythe significant 216 CEU eTD Collection by the fact that if people need to do something, ifdo they byask for come to permission.that factthe people needto And local people andcompanies. “…the ordinances have their effectand itis positive, judging likemunicipal plans legal The and strategies. rules choices the regulate and behaviour of The conditionsapplying important. for moneyEU for rulesrequirereference strategic to are rules local that agrees municipality urban Dobrich at to talking was I Everybody Rule enforcement 7.5.3. important and it correlates is with the general EPP though administration narrower in municipal scope.of impacts the reducing for programme the her to According One environmental D02). (Interview thereof” isexpert managing ISOsystem. the utilitieswater impacts and infrastructural construction, –objects, negative the impacts environmental its to municipality in regard the of “work the concerns It environment. on administration municipal of impacts the reducing for programme a drafted municipality After introduction of 14001 standard the forISO environmental management the ISO 42 implementation rules EU poor of situation critical new this amidst rule-making of process urgent this in cooperation mayorsmunicipaland environmental representativesof offered -the MoEW experts full March with 2011. Ataworkshop more than 100 participants –regional governors, municipalities by wererequested inMoEW pass the November updates untilto 2010 legislation of concerningfine in content particulates(FDP10) ambient the dust air. The Homepage of the MOEW - http://www.moew.government.bg/index.html. 14001 42 . 217 CEU eTD Collection to spent time in the court. becameof fear witnesses of to eitherrevenge becauseout they reluctant or are will need usually signals sign would not upaswitnessessend any officialwho paper againstPeople their neighbours. People wrongdoer. the of identification actual the is question substantial realized. somealways reason For order Another something (Interview D02). wrong.” goes well means not they rules]formulated, are [the if that havewe don’t a single punitive we have“Do as areason. anyWe pointed It out don’t. [court]? completed procedure unwillingness ofmunicipaland defend court lawyers the to gothe issued to were orders the and rules imperfect The court. the by confirmed is rarely it issued is order effectiveis it in Like end. the in Teteven wascomplaintthere even that when a punitive Here comes the tricky questionhas ordinances…” the (Interview D06). mechanism, the has municipality The important. most aboutthe is control the me For out. work how and who shouldwell and very detailed indocuments.” our (Interview“Itis D01). regulated, it should just do the significantmost exercise effectiveTo control is issues Ithink control. the control, that are very and change behaviour the changeto behaviour the “In of of people. order people to the how how implementationover control The of rules wasvoiced in interviewsthe asaconcernabout measures the take needed.“ (Interview D02). isit They very rare. submittree, wecheckitrespectivelyrequest, and is not or itgrounded role. (Interview D01). Further was shared that “no one dares anymore tocut branches or a ordinancemeanthe thathas not itexceptions,does played not are because there itsnow, 218 CEU eTD Collection municipalclaimed servant “We haven’t hadproblems,such that a proposal wasnot there ordinance. program or comments As the one proposed corrections andpasseswithout administration.The municipal council capacitypossess not makedoes to very substantial municipal the within from or government or parliament national the - authorities higher from either comes changes for initiative or pressure The cases. all in confirmed The initiation ofarule-making could becaused process by many Onefactors. thing was The process in practice7.6.1. 7.6. Rule-making process solution. a with veterinarian services depending problem. the Then on commissionthe the or itspresents report inspectorate health public regional and RIEW from representatives with commission municipality’s ones, environmental mayor the up a set to to could propose experts violation If the D01). (Interview pressure.” is serious and beyond competences the colleagues the are very busy.that real The lags behind,work becausethey have extra means which municipalities, other from orders punitive in hand to month every practice a is there municipality our in And react. should he/she complaint a is there if moment, cleaning collection, same transportation, of waste andatthe control waste waste- of officialstask burdened with many additional duties. “One and same the takes care person inspectors whohave four their ecothey area but are own are multi-There competence. and people of terms in limited is administration the of capacity controlling The 219 CEU eTD Collection correction or update. Then Then mayorthe update. or of representatives aworking appoints correction of group the legislation.latest The legal and signal topical department the experts if isthere need for municipal administrationthe to checks normativethe areadequate whether documents The ordinances. the with works it how explained standard the for responsible person The rule-making itself process is detailed also by voluntarythe ISO 14001system. The norms. EU the with comply to programmes quality air their revise to required were municipalities big 30 months 4 within above mentioned As D10). (Interview municipality) rural Dobrich in villages (68 dump small a is there village in every where municipalities rural for burden big a was This dumps. illegal the down close to municipalities the for obligations the e.g. timeof anddemandsThe pressure from national acceleratesauthorities theprocedures, (Interviewforeground.” D01). programmes arerequired every for application and issues these should be in the which project place is in exactly this programme, because you that these know which requires amendment, or we work on whensomething“We with updates, proceed has happened,a is there or a normativenew change, project, or we want to work on a new be hasbejustifiedwhen to sanctioned arulea project with or to practice in a program. Rules usually are legal amended to due amendments atnational level because of or a new could notrefuse, don’t have argument for that.” (Interview D11). they Every is wouldn’tapprove. proposal checked by lawyersthe and they council][the 220 CEU eTD Collection requirements discussion whereas the like documents of strategic environmental protection be publicly to decided not discussed.The ordinances of ISOstandard are partthe was program protection environmental new the about Conversely, dogs. of breeding comments, for likesome wereposted ordinances the documents the registration on and As far as I have followed a periodfor14 days. of The municipal policy in this theregard is not very consistent, though. announcementsdraftshould the be submittedpublic to discussionActs, web the on fromsite of authority leastthe at Normative on Law the Septemberof para.2 26, Art. to according Formally, 2009municipality. the of to November 2010 The public discussion ofrules happens publishingthrough the of draftthe homepagethe at came up with one proposal that later is consulted with the lawyers. initiatechange a in anordinance.in Theecoinspectors part could take a workingto group Their(Interview areusuallyproposals D11). andthus isthere accepted no problem to proposals.” file we and situations various face We session. council’s municipal at then and happenallthose time, the some precedent, wegivelawyersthe they through proposals, go According to an eco inspector “everythingare not objections in from there, it enters intothepower (Interview D02). ordinance is regional the municipalofficegovernor’s described to goes and if act council. Then theadopted there on the basisfiled withthecouncil commissions a session is at presented andof corrections, after of coming, proposals are there they are discussed made. andcorrections Then the draft is units thesubject rule.the As on of matter a draft aresult is it produced, is published and if 221 CEU eTD Collection Conversely, the strategic documents require many requireConversely, documents strategic the inexperts environmental field especially ordinancesnewest werecompleted with efforts of the localtwo municipal experts. mainlyand aredrafted program by municipalthe environmental protection and lawyers.experts The environmental the like expertise broad require not do ordinances municipal The (Interview D02). different on prepared principle. Obviously they [consultants] lacked specialists.” developingin manybut were it end“there the gaps, andinaccuracies in itit.was Just quality. The poorer consultantwas of Dobrich 2020 plan was used as a reference in municipalthe plan.”In contrast (Interview D02). developmentplan byprepared external be very to detailedbecame It out andturned very through. a It thought good together. wereworkingthere and every groups, one prepared itsof plan,the part wediscussed them practices but real the was presented good donework onthe “Weground. prepareditlong, plan abetter likeproduce it caseof was the Dobrich 2020. Theand American consultants together sit could actors local the guided well is process the If municipalities. their in conditions real the better know experts these importantly Most process. in the inputs with experts more hence administration its bigger the municipality the bigger the municipality; The capacity of municipal administration rulesdraft dependsin sizeon the part to of the In-house expertise Rule-making7.6.2. factors process. decision-making collaborative overall for implications broader isdiscretionprogram of at environmental an informalconstitutes that experts rule with 222 CEU eTD Collection “copy-paste” from (Interview drafts D12). other to tendency isthe projects in writing shortcoming Another D06). (Interview project landfill regional for presentation first the of case the like issues local the from far also environmental They are specialized andfactors. components in this servicecould but be companies These programme2009-2014). have alarge of according pool experts to bigcities like acompany Varna (e.g. from Dobrich’s the Varna drafted air quality The main in consultancies Sofiaare companiesconcentrated there are although in other Consultants external analysis on look of baseline conditions makes adifference.” (InterviewD01). metake awfully of time, things.deal a lotbecause I with other And thousand besideswill the it programme, a such draft to need I “If rule-making. municipal the of part necessary with liketheir tasks preoccupation or experts the funding under OPs,consultants become Because of because(InterviewRIEW, weareobliged lack D07). localto to.” of good “hereobligations,yourare haveisI what done needed, you could sign it andwe submit it problem the and threeandlack of tellquality of mayortwo, the one, to specialistsdo to environmentalhand,the bestspecialists.not other On the are experts “The mayors have (Interview D01). EPP the of plan action and priorities the determining the in e.g. discussion the in involved get municipal experts the byaconsultant documents such of drafting in the even Still factors. and components environmental for conditions baseline the describing when 223 CEU eTD Collection administrationoldinterference momentum at of to works accustomed and they are not making interviewees Some critical were process. of such “The municipalapproach. rule- municipal in the inputs any reasonable for incentives for provide not does past) communist from even (coming past the from inertia and approach traditionalistic This D02). whichtopic manyconcern could people butin reality only 4 opinions werefiled (Interview shown in discussionthe of draftthe ordinance onregistration and breeding of a dogs, existing NGOs keep a civil ina strong Dobrich acute that narrow so initiative and few the and roots NGOscould take focus not are ofproblems Environmental yet. their position this challenge to actors external No routines. activities. The weakThe municipal exception. administrationcivil is abig machine with imbeddedown operates that no is rule-making participationEnvironmental below. discussed “centralism” administrative local to wasclosely related and municipalities case other the in observed rigidity and traditionalism of type similar to adhere administration urban Dobrich of practices working The Traditionalism be impracticable. to D01). (Interview and above from falling that like just something, draft will somebody that absurd is It ours. plan theaction of isinpreparation carried out collaboration, even initiative the there is especially and problems, of prioritizing the but collectives to programs] [the them assign andlocal experts specialists ashappened with in newthe EPP Dobrich. “We naturally The middle ground to draft a good programme is the cooperation between the external 224 CEU eTD Collection Nikolova became chairwoman oftheregional landfillMrs. association and the despite fact that capacity. social and industrial population, largest with municipality the and centre administrative regional the is Dobrich region. inthe municipality the of powers and role The regional leadership of the aspect Dobrich of mayors is logical because of the central cohesion policy). environment, Committee Regionsthe (on of climate change and energy, andonterritorial the of commissions important two on and Economy of Ministry to fund efficiency nationalbodies at leveland EU for environmentalimportant governance like energy decision-making and consultative of member a is she above noted As qualities. leadership served beforeasamunicipalwho insecretary last the mandates has two also showed Nikolova Detelina mayor current The programme. Initiative Government Local USAID NAMRB and very prominentfigure in building of modern local governmentfunded by localThe previous governance. mayor LuchezarRossenov was deputy chairman of the consecutive mayorsleading Two were regional figures at and national level in Bulgarian Leadership behalf of the municipality, it is nottaken.” (Interview D04). initiative.take Like she/he could person helpwhen butdecisionthe should betaken on to not foreground, in the be seen to not place, their for watch they ismissing, mechanism servants arejustadaptingkeep their jobs. asthey could “Peoplebut to when are good, the According samethe D04) to respondentthis is a systematic problem and municipal (Interview municipalities.” all of problem a is This job. their in people young or citizens 225 CEU eTD Collection 2010 the municipality improved its project portfolio. The most telling example is the example telling most The portfolio. project its improved municipality the 2010 intoa preferable urban got position because of winthe of GERB and in periodthe 2009- in Dobrich the municipality. buthesupported did not After the elections in 2009 Dobrich ministerand the as a formerMP from this constituency was region aware of problemsthe environment of ministry by the directed be could funds of A lot D06). (Interview response was unsuccessful.it municipality of the colour The party was decisive negative for the government previous the under and River Dobrichka of correction the with problem urban big a solve to project large a with applied Dobrich instance, For environment. of minister of mil.Krushari (40 electorate the BGN –Interview D06)where was concentrated and Tervel like municipalities to otherwise flowing funding the of share good any get not did municipality urban Dobrich region the in municipalities smaller some Unlike GERB. hersecond mandate asmayorNikolovaMrs. by was supported a party in opposition – playcould mayor the of positive affiliation political The too. or negative protection, environmental to apply that role in getting centralThe Dobrich case sheds of lightfeature governance oneimportantpractices on in Bulgaria support (e.g. moneyPolitical preferences from EU funds). In association is employed there. technical theurban municipality through assistancegoes and atechnical and assistantof the process application the municipality rural Dobrich of territory the on is site landfill 226 CEU eTD Collection participation,weak publicand hence to same Inthe responses. vein a resourceful and public of limitation and formalization to lead has decision-making of centralization The ordinance (Interview D02). the of text the to add to little with submitted were opinions 3-4 only when example citizens.The discussion of ordinancethe onregistration and breeding of was givendogs as of contributions substantial inbelieve the not do municipal experts The D02). (Interview ordinance the discuss to way only the is this official municipal a to According ready. passive way communicationfor ofnewa very when rules andlate stage at fullthe draftthis is only use to inclined is administration the but published are ordinances new of drafts all instance, For impressive. so not is field environmental in society the with municipality public Against etc. contracts, procurements, of thisthe background cooperation the information, assessto and subsections sections and new introduced: restructured effectiveand transparent for administration”. As a resultmunicipalthe homepage was practices introducedwithin good projectthe “The citizens and the municipality – partners 2010 itwas awardedby NAMRB with administrationtransparent awardfor mostthe February In administration. transparent be a to is considered municipality unban Dobrich Local administrative “centralism” 44 of Ministers. municiaplity about targeted funding of 303000 BGN from the interinstituitonal commssionto the Council 43 gully river the of rehabilitation receivedspecial by support Councilthe of Ministers exactly of project for the Municipal homepage withnews about theaward: http://www.dobrich.bg/index.php?s=nl&id=1869. -news from http://www.dobrich.bg/index.php?s=nl&id=2046 November homepage of2010 onthe the 43 . 44 227 . It CEU eTD Collection carries out consultations very formally,carries out “from detached reality,the from what happens in when reactions, isthere more negative feedback.” municipality The (Interview D02). provisions aredecided andbasically only negative criticism could beexpressed “there are a very from whenadministrators. couldcome at lateThe proposals outside stage all publicAs mentioned procedure. above ordinances are published on municipal homepage for consultation.periodical revision andif an needsact updating, itis submitted prescribedthe to internal requirements.of The draftinglegal procedure isacts strictly regulated. They undergo Inrule-making polished by many and enhancedprocedures recently by of ISOstandard the realitymechanism working smoothly a like operates Dobrich in administration municipal The peopleClosed rule-making system dealingfor consultants other given look thatThey we are under theirsuch. nose.” (Interviewhave to D04). want don’t we and withmunicipality the with projects joint have don’t We do. they activities, hollow for is if it the but us, for looking not are they contentcooperation], anything. cost because not it does Where of support letters is there acommon [for ground with support moral get We of university. and municipality between rules cooperation of syndrome are “This street. is the a Bulgarianfrom across from elsewherethose consultants favours than leadership its and theinstitution private a with cooperating with problem has municipality affiliatedof companies and A NGOs. of collegerepresentative the the shared that network a with entity education higher strong is It municipality. the with cooperation likeactive of actor International record Collegehave Dobrich agood not alsodoes 228 CEU eTD Collection commission becamethorny issue a because modus operandi of non-transparent the council municipal special a establishing by dogs stray with problem the address to idea plastic nearby bagsfrom the landfill was already mentioned as such an example. A good problem.the The cleaning-upof campaign Varna-Dobrichalong road the littered by origin the remove not do and effect short-term have municipality of initiatives public Most undergoingprotection yearly because updates of dynamicthe of funding requirements. The MDPis areexception. only the updates frequentrelevantdocument environmental to year havestrategies duration and 4-5 their expiry leadsnew drafting to More procedures. usually requiredby law green is system (the ordinance required by territorial the law).ordinance The A new administration. outside actors by influenced substantially or initiated During than morea year observations of rule-makinga process practices Ididdetect not landfill accordingEU standards (Interview to D06). and explainedandprotestors projectthe investments about safeguarding safety the of protests are about to begintried to contact the mayor but withoutand result and onlyroads after the media announced will that beprotests closed,public the and site landfill regional of against thedesignating with mayor happened story it.Such issue. had Atpolitical first,a meeting the withinhabitants the The municipality whenaproblem acts society forbecomes the topic a and hot hence a of Stozher (a village near the proposed claims are strategies…there nothing but in practice.” (Interview D04). site) is –it capsulated.” “They town the arethousand there for paperwork, go 229 CEU eTD Collection involvement – “to be heard the other point of view”. Within this chapter the examples the chapter this Within view”. of point other the heard be “to – involvement municipality’son side. are The municipal experts talked supportively drawbacks all of publicgreater Not process? rule-making any of part strong not is society civil the Why Weak civil society system. the of openness minimum making strategies of and formal the consultations by publishing of ordinance drafts set the reviving role of nowthe external For years in(Interview15 consultants D02). after rule- worth as recognized institution an council, environmental public the of reestablishment is the out way One process. rule-making in individuals or actors other of participation the of institutionalization urge not does also leadership) the (and administration municipal side connection the other [municipality]the on but there, people are is null.” The considered in decision-making is youngthe The people. structure youngthere, related to with municipalitycooperation could learn youth and their the how voice could be “We haveagendas, etc.). established alliance the have within close – to a project committees, (with municipality of mechanisms bureaucratic and rigidity silence, met the structure established with project good a how explained Dobrich College International takingat aimed Alliance Youth Dobrudzha of initiative The updecision-making. in involvement somecivil for mechanisms for options are there when taskseven routines old follows municipality The of the municipality(Interview D06). isdoing.” commission this what know relateddon’t “we – chairman its by demonstrated to the youth. A representative of 230 CEU eTD Collection the institutionthe of more insights emerged from interviews in inspectorate the Varna. at importance and powers institutional and legal the with Alongside (RIEW). inspectorate environmental regional of role the first discussing worth is it section hierarchies’ the In Hierarchies rule-making and Governance 7.7. region. nationalpresence of environmentalbroader even NGOs or of green the inparties the capacitythe of local NGOs induced by external – factors new funding opportunities or civilwhere the is one strengthening other the society of organizations could hold aquota, making.One avenue revivingpublic of is through structure environmental the council rule- in the asparticipants recognition higher get to need actors other and NGO The purposeful action of the mayor’s team.” (Interview D04). initiativebecause andeducation, [official] therespective person butis asa not good “whateverhappens, happensbecause[officials] people the that of of their on spot, the holds administration municipal and NGOs between cooperation the on position critical A more administration. the towards passive are and deadlines, the miss opportunities, inNGOs are participationmany (Interview D05). instances ignorant of funding A NGO leaderhasD06). blame shared local alsoto NGOs are low for the level of small, local andcampaigningThey NGOs. are too spontaneous on occasions (Interview of reputation and presence the by exemplified mostly field environmental in consolidation main two closed show reasons: administrative and and weaksocial routines attitudes 231 CEU eTD Collection MoEW report with information about what has been controlled, how many punitive orders ministrythe at central structures are insendsThe RIEW charge. every Thursday to the which for Environment OP for accept RIEW the through protection environmental the to related everything on municipalities the of activities the monitoring is MoEW The landfill. regional new the with problems the by provoked governor’s regional the at Dobrich in held were meetings Such municipalities. to opinions provide to available environmental of RIEW are summonedexpertise. experts The many on occasions best the having of reputation also level has regional at authority environmental as RIEW law. with conformity for governor regional by monitored are ordinances) (e.g. rules legal such scrutiny bysubject to regionalthe decisions The inspectorate. of local on authorities requirements ifcommentsis and program for returned, the redraftingneeded, until it satisfies the all summarises ofexpert One opinion. themotivated gives and section his/her RIEW reads expert experts.fields is program assembled:the of on air, biodiversity,waste, Every areas,etc. Only protected the EPPslocal environmental After receivingprograms. inof ateam experts draft, the all subject from the (Interviewenvironmental D07). The RIEW extent,e.g. if carriesthere is noprogramme, full we to fine him, ifobligations there ishis/her an out illegal with comply dump,alsonot rules we finedoes him.”mayor one “If preventive region. their in municipality) are activities with the municipalities of actions the over control (of mayorsthe as of representatives reviewthe of the regional arethe environmentalThe inspectorates inter alia, that, authorities exercise 232 CEU eTD Collection and much better opportunities arose with the new government of GERB. beneficial municipalitythe for terms with good oldthe on governmentbecausewas not it Dobrich In case politicalchangeof the the feature in though. process, was power years newgovernmenttwo comesafter and could passnew laws.isonly That not negative New mayors with government work one and together. work yearsto haveauthorities two elections place in take themiddle mandate new the of the of government and these yearsphenomenon of overlappedtwo of mandates. Inthelast years, municipal the between the national and local The cooperation isauthorities by disrupted the firstlevels of administrativethe hierarchy. (appointed in autumn 2009) waspraised as a skilful herexpert careerfromwhostarted the of newRIEW The director with RIEW was reported. cooperation good Dobrich casea youcontrol andyouitwith will a to copy (Interview us[MoEW].” to report D07). In the andis mayors– first, “you told carried do need are out to second,third. RIEW will policy national way that In regions. 8 in about [NAMRB] municipalities the of association the with meetings has ministry “Our disseminated. is requirements environmental new about information municipalities with meetings periodical At issues. policy environmental new on guidelines with municipalities provides MoEW inspectorates regional the Above (Interview D07). problems,are the were issued,every what andat months summarythree reports 233 CEU eTD Collection regional level. It turned out that fasterregional communication that level. out andturned in shortcuts It decision-making of vertical and between test theenvironmental horizontal coordination good experts at a been has governor by regional coordinated project Dobrudzha of network Green The conundrum. financial the resolved authority governor’s of decisiveness landfill.The new the to transferred be will later which landfill existing the for equipment new of purchase of case the The same(Interview successful D03). intervention by regionalthe happenedgovernor in meetingthe after with RIEWthe issue wassettled and decided what is do.” needed to of agricultural servicessolve problem. the to mayors of the Some hadtheir claims and “We in 2009. waste [regionalthe of office]governor’s called of representatives RIEW and Such anoccasion wasthe closinggovernor. of illegalthe down dumps and the redirecting problems environmental when situations arein difficult employed often beyondis power symbolic additional the powers of the the powers these In additionregional to mayors. possessesgovernor also informal authority. This Then they usually turn to thefew times before taking actions.”(Interview D07). more drastic regional this try could We obligations. his fulfil to failed mayor the that governor regional inform mayor. andthe us[RIEW] WeWecontrols areunderregional could governor. governor regional “The municipalities. andthe RIEW both control to and decisions governments’ review formal possesses lawfulnessregional the who to governor power oflocal The hierarchy environmentalof governance includes as discussed above also figure the of 234 CEU eTD Collection things wereachieved.” some In (Interview instances D02). the regional stepped governor of lot a on, move they still but hard, are things the now and landfill, the with difficult very tensionswere especially there urban the between and rural Dobrich municipalities.was “It and easy not was beginning The Environment. OP under grants for apply to association landfill regional a established have region Shumen from municipality one and region regional Atlevel like in caseof the Lukovitand municipalitiesthe Teteven of Dobrich traditional means of approval and endorsementremained intact. shouldaction In thisprojectthe failed beundertaken. part changeproduce and to every administration at person rightreaches the in case a meeting is joint needed other or information the time shorter much in that so communication the improve to designed region the and aimed in was strengthening at connections of theirthe It between experts. policy in environmental authorities competent the between coordination on Bulgaria for resilience the shows – acasethat asa pilot administration.the rules of started at project It partialambitious out success becauseturned goals but of legal and administrative barriers homepage of as on homepageregionalof governor on isthe of Dobrudzha posted importance.The above mentioned Green network project in like abiggertown Dobrich Networks are complicated because of its regional scale and Networks appointment byof experts headsthe of administration. possible not are becauseof administrative rules of hierarchical subordination and ɟ of three regionalthe embarked of It on projects. 235 CEU eTD Collection a particular issue. The rural municipality’s expert agreed that at the urban municipality urban the at that agreed expert municipality’s rural The issue. particular a approached they how advices with or ordinances their with him provide They municipality. rural the at colleague only their help municipality urban the from experts municipal their environmental is there exchangeexperts knowledge of Usually andpractices. the among Nevertheless, found. been has ground landfill)common regional of construction satisfactory andonly in caseswhen localboth and national (like areatstake interests the them between policyat As alreadyabove cooperation the level out pointed is far from rural. and urban – municipalities two of centre administrative an is Dobrich of town The Dobrich. of visitors and citizens the benefits that partnership successful a created Dobrich Club Ecological like NGOs other as well as foundation the municipality, 45 Animal Protection Centre withSchaffhausen theSwiss town cooperation wastheestablishment andof Nature economic activitiesenvironment. of alsorelate the butto outcome One important Hungary,Poland andSwitzerland. The fields comprise mostly of cooperation cultural and China, from cities also but Turkey and Macedonia from cities Belarus, in Pinsk Ukraine, in Ismail Russia, in Saratov like countries neighboring from cities with ties traditional the are them Among municipality. the of homepage the at listed towns twin 9 are There towns. other with in twinning active very is municipality urban Dobrich level official At leader (Interview D03). regional a of authority informal and formal his both employing mainly mediator as in http://www.zoodobric.ch/. 45 carried out by carried out Bulgarian-Swissthe foundation The Zoo. Pro 236 CEU eTD Collection Community has been implementedDobrich landfill. current the at figure in BAMEE.The DEPOINFOsystem developed for BAMEE underan EU project leading a and member board a is municipality urban Dobrich of expert environmental chief The practices. EU new implement which projects its and association national the to linked is latter The rule-making. regional and local in debates environmental in stand up campaigns of Clubthe policythe withoutgetting to forefront and taking a stronger cleaning- and initiatives in educational pupils school and teachers mobilising for potential and scope regional with is former The (BAMEE). experts environmental municipal of association national the to connected experts environmental of and Dobrich Club The identified professional in Dobrich networks with associated areof teachers Ecological basis. regular on dialogue constructive a in involved be would experts environmental that model under reformed that administrative rules could berun successfully in the future so regional the of caselandfill.the a cooperation presents of Dobrudzha Green The Network in like decision-making and consultations of broker a instances few in became governor regional The partner. to need and could municipalities where investments environmental big than other in areas also initiatives common of lack is there background this Against schemes). funding different for eligible are municipalities (both restrictions funding is complicatedcooperation givenand expert political the shortcomings andcooperation signals cleaning-upcoordinate areexchanged them The between actions. to institutional “there things (InterviewIn cases aremore people, the of D10). illegal arebetter.” dumps 237 CEU eTD Collection of publicof environmental council couldnew open options andfor broader systematic becomeof administrativethe outsiders part that Theidea so process. practices of restoring municipal change to impossible to near is that showed Dobrich College International the to in campaignspart take andawareness rising Allianceschool case the atbutof Youth the opinionsown could expressnegative but reactions. as Some groups high school students their formulate rarely They NGOs. as or individuals as either field that in active so not in public part take or hearings dogs) last (the onair one quality programme). Citizens are public could make comments ordinanceof the thedraft on of registration(e.g. the of of The participation community is realized of a laterule-making stage at when process the job behalfon (Interview D01). NGO.” of the entire the do should municipality the again but work, will it project, some for NGO the of evenalmostnone, noneare atall. people; there working them If namefor the we contact capacity underestimate existingthe of the local NGOs. “Some exist actuallypaper, on involvement.They even NGOsasweakness consider lackandthe strong tendto of public encourage to commitment expressed officials municipal The administration. municipal by the left niche a fillin They governance. environmental in citizens of participation of level about telling is Dobrich) Club (Ecological subjects environmental environmentalThe example with youth. the and of of ineducation work teachers network campaigns theiractions are of certain special Most to related Day)days andto Earth (e.g. environmentaltheirfor contributions acknowledged on behalfNGOs are of civil society. Two governance. in environmental partaking community stronger and wider Even bigger in times than Teteven and Lukovit Dobrich urban municipality has not any 238 CEU eTD Collection stubble-fieldsmuchso illegal aboutnot but dumping as he would expect. In the signals RIEW Varna weremostly birdsabout dolphins or (near seaside), the burning of environmental about regional at problems.an expertoffice governor’s According to the signal to RIEW at or municipality the at line phone green disposal their at have Citizens the eightthe priority areas is environmentalof protection one projects, environmental on money of allocation about homepage the on information not is there Although BGN. 3000 to up with community local of benefit in initiatives civil with the participation of citizens and entities. There is an additional program for funding of publicprogram about in works municipal sites kindergartens,property (streets, markets) http://www.dobrich.bg/index.php?s=sc&id=378. 46 inBulgaria municipality first the is urban Dobrich neighbourhoods. in their utilities public of improvement for citizens the of projects of costs yard of kindergarten and The municipality(Interview D11). school. cleanestthe award used to and greenest backyard and Nowadays thereand municipality clean and the up, out get isto will collect atits their waste own expenses.” a fund citizens all that invites which municipality, providesof initiative an is cleaning-up big “The up municipality. to 75 % of The spring cleaning-ups model the are of larger public involvement organized by has happened. environmentalit as apossible but repeatedly option still to referred experts future nothing Dobrich’s public. general of members active of decision-making real in involvement Theprogramme: Homepage of Dobrich urban municipality - 47 . 46 implementing such implementing 239 CEU eTD Collection 47 drafting although mostly programs, of management.waste for The project new forthe municipalthe administration.Recently for technical projects EU the assistance supported pressing environmental problems and of relatedthe measures and decided budgetare by the of identification The plan. action the of priorities the determining in and analysis SWOT in the part takes and information with consultants provides municipality The program). municipal latest have the drafted environmental air the programmes EPP, (the quality time collection. anddata The consultancy companies with specific environmental expertise manage same andatthe day-to-day require documentswork strategic that time prepare to with higherinformation capacity and municipal accessto the inexperts Dobrich could not isconsultants normal of a The contracting atDobrichpractice urban municipality. Even Markets helped. No lawsuit has also been landfill filed againstcurrent EIA report the (Interviewof D02). functioning normal of fact The landfill. the of impacts the about Dobrich urban who explained Dobrich of rural municipality after ameetingbut people wereconvinced by council mayorthe of municipal the at aboutdeclaration protest a filed and theVarna to Dobrich safetyfrom road main measures and the villagefindings new wherethe landfillclose the to threatened willThe protestors be constructed. of EIA report during myI have detected field wasaNIMBYcaseof inhabitantsthe instance research of only Stozher The rights. their protect to protests civil organize rarely citizens municipality Theprogramme: TheHomepage of Dobrich urban municipality - 240 CEU eTD Collection among them.” D07). (Interview “They mayors][the realisediscredit themselves.to it and not try is There acompetition role. its plays accountability of sense this and EU towards Bulgaria of obligations the of municipality any In mayorsiscase the driver, serious too. another in region the are aware http://www.dobrich.bg/index.php?s=sc&id=1036. 48 15.5 millions– app. Euros) BGN millions 31 (nearly money The dynamics. governance for driver one only is problems levelEU municipal managementwaste ordinanceThe solving hasbeen updated. of waste Because technicalof documentation. newthe rules of project assistance preparation at for and mayor, the of leadership political staff, municipal – undertaking this to allocated ishere again project EU The biggestfor regional landfill are and alotof resources D02). (Interview more.” explain to and us oblige should somebody “Obviously environment. about information and awareness public the to simultaneous is process This attention. environmental the rules havebetter newEU regulated issues andmore they political got observed in alarger on scale. and Teteven though Lukovit, The overall perception is that as practices and rules funds, EU with experience similar has municipality urban Dobrich Europeanization7.8. - members regional of the association. municipalities 9 all of programs management waste of drafting the assisted landfill regional List of on-going projects: Homepage of Dobrichurbanmunicipality - 48 ) expected to be managed by the leading Dobrich urban Dobrich leading by the managed be to expected ) 241 CEU eTD Collection an ambitious andexperienced mayorwith national and EU credentials. Forfew yearsby the led administration municipal the again is Dobrich in actor governance active most The its decisionsextent arrangements. and procedural larger a to influences and others 8 with association in municipality leading a is municipality regional landfill isflagship a occupies projectgovernance that agenda. Dobrich new urban The application. their and rules environmental in solutions seek and municipality asmallof river urban of the amongproblems are the character debated mostrepresent that pollution,noise and Air wasteoffice. management, governor’s maintenanceregional the like there of the greenpresented system authorities of the cityregional andwith of the gully problems andgovernance solutionsan urban of municipality isthat a big regional centre The Dobrich case is differentleastdimensionsinat two –itenvironmental represents Summary7.9. commissions. important two of member a being level EU at Regions the of Committee The mayor is an activework. of memberscope of Bulgarianthe delegation the to an experienced unitwith capacity anddraftproposals with to potential for expanding their worknot do much experts on EU environmentalMunicipal applications. project the and projects association landfill regional likethe they do in Teteven and Lukovit butadministration.example,For is there anappointed staff theywho dealsperson exclusively with form energyon on-goingefficiency) project andaffect functions structure the of municipal newThe environmental (inprojects factbeside landfill the is there only project other one 242 CEU eTD Collection lack of common implies projects lack of trust. collaboration with Dobrich urban municipality has been formalmore the extent that the to The municipalities. Romanian and Bulgarian with partnership in sustainability on projects many runs network Dobrich College International the tourism is subject main its Although unit. development project and companies business NGOs, associations, professional International Collegeof entities:connected Dobrich with high anetwork school, andrural cases of inTeteven Lukovit Dobrich thereis apowerful educational centre analysed actors the discoveries NGO capacity addition and to In in about interests. the the among were parties political with leader NGO one of affiliation the and Dobrich regional at fewteachers of level timesThe large ayear. network of Ecologicalthe Club profile:narrow environmental with work youtheducation, the and cleaning-up campaigns administration and local medialeaderseven NGO the admit but The NGOs it. have a municipal the from comes judgement This process. rule-making and policy environmental The civilenvironmental by society represented two NGOs plays a marginal inpart landfill. the at system DEPOINFO the like Bulgaria in practices newest the of many promoted has and BAMEE in figure leading a is expert environmental senior The municipality. Environmentalleaders. skilful are experts with long experience working for the policy propose changes;expertise to they strong rely completely municipalthe on staff and have not do and role supportive play commission environmental its and council municipal after but party opposition an with coming affiliation political her of because isolated was municipality into power of this party the doors got opened and funds available. The 243 CEU eTD Collection in lack The routines. environmental old of acute problems and weakness the of entrenched is decision-making the that and society the to enough open not is municipality publicly.debated administration the outside Still actors expressed theirthe concerns that also are programs the of most and rules legal of consultations public for rules formal are nationalinnovative for awards got andIt administration.governance. transparent There local and environmental of areas many in frontrunner a is municipality urban Dobrich with enforcementthe tasked of rules. is inspectors eco of Unit implemented. are participation and projects civil encouraging management, greensystem,on an air quality programme and special programmes for publicordinancesmunicipal on order, and environmentalproperty waste on protection, collaborative decision-making Beside all with usual the actors. concerned rules like the broader for leadership municipal for model a as used be could that municipality fewthe long-term developmentplans in Bulgaria –Dobrich 2020 -initiated by the Dobrich has developedcomplex a system legal hasof rules, It both one of and strategic. municipalities. with meetings joint in role expert performancewiththe monitors sanctioning of mayorsthe powers, and exercises advisory is vested latter The municipalities. between landfill) regional about (e.g. solving problem lawfulness of local legal rules and enjoys formal strong and informalthe facilitate to authority oversees but matters in environmental functions direct limited has former The RIEW. and governor regional - authorities regional two on light sheds case Dobrich The 244 CEU eTD Collection struggles. achievementin developing despite resilience the andcooperation newstructures and old an - region in the communities the of interest common on decide and together sit - to rural and urban – municipalities Dobrich two the made It involvement. expert external and mobilization administration money, of in terms issues others all overshadowed project landfill regional the Again Regions. the of Committee the to commissions at mayor the of position the is –up, bottom going time this making, policy EU with municipality the of involvement active the of feature distinctive One process. rule-making the in municipality implementing programmesbecome EU and for partner haspotential the a to good policy. Dobrich as acity is like an arena of actors important International College Dobrich rules of andpractices affectsThe Europeanization all relevant areas of environmental its early stage. management regional andthe landfilltopic which project unleashed at organized protests waste by exemplified best are problems environmental of complexity and scale The of environmental structure governance in hierarchies, community networks, and markets. specificsThe urban of caseandthe its regional importance addednewinsightsthe into environmental of shows features centralizationexperts and closeness of rule-making. withoutpublic draftingthe proceeded newof EPP discussions bylike decision of cases municipal but participation public poor the partly explain could NGOs local environmental 245 CEU eTD Collection evidence basis of dissertation the are summarized.In such way localthe environmental as interviews and studies case analysis, document from findings sections following the In dominates whole the policy cycle. administration actor but one of negotiation isbetween andreal actors process no there municipal by manner administrative closed ina strictly developed are rules formal equally everybodyfor and rule-makingin is not interestof everybody. Inmost cases activitiesequallyThey rules is not matter. matter that andprocesses, in all cases, not One general conclusion,will that be detailed in fields this in actors, chapter to of respect environment. with dealing of ways and subjects actors, with map the populate to also and environmental explanatory and governancepaths anddraw signs (definitions) on its map of mainthe ground the local go to thesisof the questionsto arerelated quest other –to governance inhabit discourse this domain ofdecision-making processes? All these and compliance exercised andpowers from the multi-level orders with above? does How environment? When rules emerge is from in it or mere processes, result from bottom-up rules Islocal abound andmatter? level level mostthe appropriate make rulesto about cases they formalhave beenaburden. Do rules really rule their orunder surface informal in which it, strengthen have they in whichcases - governance for rules of importance the issues hot of local environmentalanalyse rules, to rule-makingdiscuss and to processes The main thesisthe of endeavours haveexplore the forms, and beento capture paths and case ofLEG VIII. Local environmental rules and rule-making -a 246 CEU eTD Collection them them discussedlength at in all case studies is the strategic planning and rules derived from Within and beyond these stricter legal boundaries other sources of rules exist. One type of procedures. in concrete exert not might or might they participation public of rights enjoy public hand,duties. On and other NGOs rules the general concerning andcontractual theiroperations legal with comply to need that businesses and council municipal administration; lawact under the are required arethe mayor to that andactors of municipal the group the their followingpowers obligations exercise underThey law the rights usethe or guaranteed under the law. In position. determined legally their is rule-making in stake with be substantiveregulations.The first common andprocedural denominator for local to actors Local environmental formalrulesgovernance apply areasof accordingthe to legalto leaders. NGO local and businessmen councillors, municipal main The figures of importance mayors, arethe deputy mayors, environmental stressed. be someexperts, should capacity informal and formal in their both personalities of role The mayor. the to directly go to municipality, smaller a in ifliving especially happens in that onemunicipality.isunusual not It whatever problem one citizen has, staff and legalalso traditionally but competences perceived as responsible for everything Municipal municipalities. administrative areresilient structures in Bulgarian and powerful – not only with power their budget,of centre the is mayor by led administration Municipal some of them withthe and level dynamic a studied draw documents in picture of actors greaterlocal national environmental at governance: interviews the municipalities, powers,Bulgarian three in work field The some just havepowers emerged, others becoming obsolete. will be addressed. from governance andtendenciesrules’ aswellfeatures perspective of LEG factors, as the 8.1. Who makes the rules – importance of local actors and their real 247 CEU eTD Collection On the other hand, a strong mayor with a vision and support from municipal council could council municipal from support and vision a with mayor strong a hand, municipality. other the the On outside and within leaders of position mayors’ the strengthens office the The casesofDobrich andT08). Interviews Lukovit T01, have shown longerthat time in and his/herstaff atmunicipality hold work the needtake of time to years 2-3 (up to – cycle poses another areas policy municipalitiesthe limitation need funds environmental from national and co-fundedbudget EU OPs.The election other all In environment. to only allocated to mayor’s budget additional municipal little is there Dobrich like perspective.city bigger a in Even spent. and is collected locally budget Ifmanagement a waste Only new staff. and mayor resources financial limited on isrely Mayors coming, he/she priorities. of list mayor’s every high on scores money this getting of process the so financial support, national and EU waste collectionof and disposal, supplyfield water could be treatment and waste addressed onlyin the with rules EU new with compliance the and issues community Nevertheless, important agenda. municipal on protection environment of status the impact priorities usually political Their experience. management and administrative long with leaders and cases asitIn mostis budget in with actors. all other cooperation case municipalitiesunits, mayors are administrative of structure the community, the with communication services, of provision – life municipal of aspect every almost greatly impact for figures local environmental pivotal They governance. are municipalare managers by law and their decisions municipalities Bulgarian in mayors that confirmed has research This Mayors 8.1.1. rule- and rules making. environmental for actors local main the of importance and roles positions, with Belowconsultants. andcontacts follows newexperts of recruitment a discussion on by agenda new drafting andrevisingthis alsoenvironmental to and plans.strategies This exercise has adjust led to to need municipalities in Bulgaria, authorities pressure public of all on lot a put rules EU environmental Since domain. policy certain a in actions development and for amunicipality of policy and vision the formulate rules strategic The it. 248 CEU eTD Collection appointed to control the compliance with rules (Interview N01). The opposite pole is pole opposite The N01). (Interview rules with compliance the control to appointed because personal of the commitment mayor administrationof the strong andof the he has managementservices areasmaintenance andgreen rankas of one bestthe in Bulgaria mayorrulethe of of enforcement area stand In the is decisive. In waste Haskovo discussions and decisions themayor between andhis/her (Interview team T01). research showed that the selection of projectsapply to for is also in the domain of informal home their with municipalitythan of municipalthe attitude becausethe of leadershipThe (Interviewmunicipalities D04). other with working prefer municipalities and projects to due policy the with of newandcompetence the mayor.experiencepartly actors Other with EU marginalised be could Teteven of Centre Sustainability the like municipality in cases In some established one D04). structures T07, (Interviews others ignore the of municipalityrepresentatives As they practically could influence rules. and the selection of contractors preferred formal follow not do that decision-making of establish could practices positions leader’s and manager’s their to due mayors side informal the On mayors’ The decisions shape environmental consultancy unitsassistance. or rule-making. of quality the influence could units and experts environmental public.generalIn more terms the decisions and competences on structure of byand draftbe defend contested members if itto out it of turns council byor general experts anddraw uprules. they Later working to file groups with municipal council the ordinancesof But formally and strategies. they rule-makingsteer by process appointing caseshavecome of across participationDuring I direct not research of the mayors in preparation informal. and formal – twofold is rule-making environmental in mayors of role The GERB power. came to party the in2009 until region the in municipalities connected“ „well but smaller funding. national Dobrich haveof been andahalfneglected one for mandates mayor of the compared to interms municipality the of positioning better for condition obstacle or be might to mayor the of affiliation political The (Teteven). mandate one in lot a do 249 CEU eTD Collection suffers from a high staff, of salaries turnover unattractive which for opportunities create administration public Bulgarian The level. central or regional local, at it be capacity, benefits of this assistance because of critical weaknesses in administrativefull and judicialthe reap to able not is “Bulgaria Bulgaria: in funds EU of management on report problem Bulgarianacute on local sameIn the governance. vein arethe conclusions in the The lackcapacity consultants. of presenceand of the old administrative practices posean and authorities other with coordination for need and information of flow requirements, new to up measure to struggle municipalities the Still integration. EU and environment underbig in OPs yearsprojects recent the newstaff has been inrecruited fieldthe of Driven by Europeanization of practices and rules and new the demands for managing of aredetermined.strategies and ordinances new of content and form process, drafting of timing discretion and duties likeother drafting of ordinances, strategies, programs and plans. Attheir decision servantsmunicipal manage control or services populationthe provided and to perform public municipal The mayor. the by led administration municipal the is rules produce to with the heaviest arsenal The actor of financialhuman andresources, legalpower mandate Municipal administration8.1.2. sanctions. minimum issueenvironmental warnings to prefer andexperts onlyimpose to as a last resort pay fines to poor is andof poverty by population that of too general or state qualityoccupied by poor services,of presumed weak schemesdue to corruption control 250 CEU eTD Collection urban, Kardzhali). There is a constant turnover because thesalaries Kardzhali).urban,turnover is There aconstant and overall life withold more are cadres than 10 yearsor Lukovit) under several mayorsDobrich (e.g. in (e.g. Teteven, work at of their with a year career two start the or at are experts Some lot. a varies experience professional Their LEG. in actor institutional important an become environmental administrationthe and at their associationstopic have networks through but everyday environmental rule-makingandimplementation. only Not they do manage the municipalMayors, councillors, interviewees other of place centre real the them at Among all municipal of role environmental the experts shouldexperts be emphasized. Municipal environmental8.1.3. experts tight deadlines.trainings overtime andwork stick to and to aremotivated andpreparation implementation. of them English,Most speak good have attended project and integration EU of tasks contentious and burdensome the over took who Such wasthecasewith theexcellentand motivated young people in Lukovit and Teteven administration. municipal the at university after job first their start and return graduates they stillexperts bestthe haveones in best the Manyattract town. keep or young not could Dobrich like bigger or Teteven Lukovit, like municipalities smaller though Even programme wasin andTeteven updated a year for morethan no place. there change headof the environmental of the unitcaused delay in of ina new EPP adoption (http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/secretariat_general/cvm/docs/bulgaria_report_funds_20080723_en.pdf ). (http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/secretariat_general/cvm/docs/bulgaria_report_funds_20080723_en.pdf 2008 Bulgaria. funds in 49 centralized procedures.” andoutdated, corruption, Report from thecommission to the European the ParliamentCouncil and on Management the of EU- 49 For instance the turnover of staff and staff of turnover the instance For 251 CEU eTD Collection their capacity. In addition to the good contacts maintained association contacts the the their through good the capacity.In addition to environmental whohaveexperts longmunicipalities worked at and constantly upgraded going streams into landfill).the time waste the of The association has of a 20-30 core types of templates and in documents for areaandwith monitoring the DEPOINFO in real - avirtualrecently above mentioned with ECONET under the library projects with all (most information and guidelines trainings, with members its provided They projects. these of beneficiary main was (BAMEE) Experts Environmental Municipal of Association the MoEW with Together 1). 2007, (Ramboll legislation” environmental new of requirements the implement effectively shall which level, local at structures administrative trained and “well-developed of establishment supporting through and experts environmental of skills and knowledge the of improvement through legislation environmental EU implement to strengthening Ramboll (of the of local projects Some EU targeted capacityand EPTISA) Dobrich). legislationwhen a local or be with problem addressed(e.g. in stray dogs needs to in national occur changes such when in rules, changes initiate and work everyday municipal mayorthe subordinated to andhis/her servants are decisions. They careof take them alsocauses conflictsThe experts as anddissatisfaction N01). (Interview with work Since the quality control isvery sensitive a protection issue because of money and in interests management.waste is often in the handsmake leave experts “reliable” because they are not Environmentalcould (Interview T01). mayors new addition, ofIn environmentalattractive. not is municipalities countryside the in standard experts the pressure on 252 CEU eTD Collection municipal councils deal with. The most usual case is of council commissions covering two covering commissions council of is case usual most The with. deal councils municipal areas policy many of one only is Environment commission. one than more on sit they And else. something work them of most because details into get to time limited also have They field. in this specialists usually not are councillors The capacity. administration’s municipal on rely and experts environmental own have not do councils municipal reality In positions. experts’ environmental and structure administrative on and environment for budget voting by rule-making for capacity the influence indirectly could council the addition In rejected). quality revision forand drafts returning the (in thefirst Teteven draft was of EPP better demanding by process rule-making influence could It administration. municipal Formally municipalthe council blockor rules drafted adopt bypossesses theauthority to Municipal council 8.1.4. process. drafting inthe them help to municipalities other of examples and practices best find also with they changesstay the updated in legislation requireof that adoption new rules and way that In systems. information legal the in or online document legal any find already information has become The couldexperts easier (Interview 10years N02). than ago Alongwith professional these and capacity contacts building accessto the programs (Interviews T02and D01). channels other informal use for experts consultations like calling for adviceeach other to 253 CEU eTD Collection councillors took part in seebelow process, part the councillors took of different in developmentactors of EPP (only in of 24 municipalities8 out municipal participation on survey a by confirmed is rule-making in participation Low amendments. environmental field.in They usually rules presenting without andvote own proposals councillors the of initiatives own and participation active of lack showed studies Case leadership and experts. chairmanall isisadmitted that the who leftmunicipal aveterinarian work the to doctor of competence commission theareaof Teteven is environment and tourism and the rural development,and and environment and itschairman has businesses.and ahotel other In territorial with deals commission the Lukovit In expertise. of field his not is protection environmental and business transportation runs commission of chairman The environment. and infrastructure transport, on is commission the municipality urban Dobrich of case policymore or areas and environmental takingthird secondor protection place. Inthe a result a transfer station was negotiated with other municipalities with other was negotiated a transfera result station from the association. as and in Teteven sessions council’s at discussions heated provoked implications financial and political serious with landfill regional the like projects EU-funded body. collective and heavycircumstances (e.g. pollution).And in this council casethe as acts an active actor come along, councils that Europeanization andthe andspecific projects - local municipal of commitment environmental higher to lead could factors main two However of determineenvironment lower status councillors’on agenda. environmental field, multiplethe fields andlackcompetence of of own expertise and time Table 6 ). In sum, complicated). the 254 CEU eTD Collection initiatedfor establishment aproject alandmarknow municipality. Geopark, forof the the and leadership showed businessman one in Lukovit Nevertheless, experts. municipal the work to substantive all trust to inclined are rather but rule-making to contributors important themselves consider not do they in tourism) and transport, (in expertise different their of because Nevertheless businessmen. are environment of incharge commission the of significant other forms of participation InDobrichwere found. and chairmen Lukovitthe no because in municipal council representation its through mostly observed was rules municipalities case In the the impact of business localon environmental governance and Local 8.1.5. business administration experts. themunicipalenergy of council because is entire the left work in handsthe of mobilisedconsume council notmost environmental timethe does of the and protection campaigner andenvironmentalBeside NGO (InterviewN01). suchan extreme case of a municipalthe thresholds, council beyondwent its legal the role of duties and took the above times in arsenic and nickel cadmium, with pollution air constant Facing population. local the for authority representative principle the being even powerless and helpless look council the made situation The permits. integrated with facilities industrial sanction andto close the plant competent because RIEW not oversees are authorities of severe environmentalsource a problems city. for the this In casethemunicipal from Kardzhali with its heavy lead andzinc extracting industry The plantwere collected. is case municipalities The three heavy to exposed industrial arenot pollution evidencesbut 255 CEU eTD Collection investigated in this dissertation. Nevertheless, the identified local practices of closed of practices local identified the Nevertheless, dissertation. this in investigated informalthe about rules of paternalism Thispractices. not was thread and corruption distribution of localcollection inconditiona strict amountisfor fact the of payment not The (Interview N01)). budget to waste management befavouredin could manycontractors ways quality that (so cleaningof street and waste contractors management. water and Dependingraiseswaste leadershipthe on of municipalitythe some a host of questions managementwaste to servicesinterest and implementation of infrastructural for projects their turn businesses and municipalities that out find could track money the follows one If its environmental performance. andcould affordpay to monthly fines for pollution (Interview N01)instead of improving position instronger a been has city in the employer biggest the as operator The MoEW). media campaigns of protests, NGO’s tactics and signals authorities (RIEW, competent to council the legal to direct plantclosethe without down has resorted to competences the operator of the facility and municipal council have been in an open conflict for long but Conversely,in Kardzhali caseof is there an exemplary aircase of source pollution. There environmental damages and conflicts between pollutersthe major and population the no occur. hence and operate industries polluting heavily no municipalities case In Lukovit). in course golf for (e.g. firm local a not is it cases most in but active very is project Onlyin theprocess). part companyin the took EIAprocedures has that initiated the companies local municipalities 24 of out in2 (only EPP of development in participation andpublic discussions.On national scale picture is the thesamea survey according to on in rule-making part take not does business the that in interviews shared experts Municipal 256 CEU eTD Collection misused,sometimes even by politicians (Interview andparties N04).National NGO are funds (Interviewaccess to In manyget T07). to purpose instances their position could be praying because of or projects on tendency the L01), of establish NGO with solethe commercializedor hampering andT07), (Interviews T06 local development (Interview image localof NGO is controversial and often negative. They are considered “parasites” decision-makingthe with to capacitycontribute partners to (e.g.Interview D01). The valuable as them consider not do administrations Municipal studies. case the by confirmed conflictinglocal Atlevel interests. play NGOs donot a substantial role in rule-making as of basis on NGOs and municipalities the between distrust of level high a is There (Interview N01). council municipal the by led been has polluter the with battle main the thresholds the critically exceeded pollution air where in Kardzhali Even Dobrich). near landfill new a of planning the of stage initial the at protested group citizen small a Dobrich in (only protests or demands of in form issues environmental any raise not do citizens municipalities bymarked of NGOs and communityweak representation leaders. case In the is rule-making and governance environmental in local involvement community of map The Local 8.1.6. NGOs rules. unlawful, even sometimes informal, of development for soil fruitful a is level local that suggest levels upper from support political with combined society civil weak and “centralism” administrative local decision-making, administrative 257 CEU eTD Collection municipalities could afford their services (Dobrich urban). (Dobrich services their afford could municipalities if the consultants the from inputs the or unit environmental municipal of priorities the areusually documents strategic of results collective not decision-making reflect butrather municipal The policy. municipal environmental of implementation and formulation in programs (see casesof participation ofNGOsinrare the development of environmental protection Environmental Acquis. project Capacity the Strengthening of Local and Regional Environmental Authorities to Implement the 50 Blagoevgrad,etc in departments the between municipality,the in with RIEW, Basin – Directorate level interdepartmental on made are consultations “The participation. public and development municipalandof EPP other planning documents involvedo not stakeholders closed administrative practicethe of andpreparation Accordinga report to procedure. Another factor for low visibility of the NGOseconomy in nature sensitivelocal in areas in(e.g. theinvestments EIA of the golf against course the near Lukovit).fighting life, local rule-makingfrom distant “troublemakers”, considered process is the existing COWI. 2008. Urban Environment Management Plan of City Plan the of Blagoevgrad, Management the under prepared Environment Urban COWI.2008. Table 6 . ” 50 The same The conclusion onlyshows couldthat bedrawn from a report below). In all case municipalities NGOs were found marginal actor marginal found were NGOs municipalities case all In below). 258 CEU eTD Collection of Environmental Legislation, Bulgaria, by Bulgaria, Legislation, Ramboll,ofp.121-122. 2007, Environmental 51 Explanation: Table 6Participants in the development ofEnvironmental Protection Programs. municipalities) of (number Total Chirpan Topolovgrad Straldzha Strazhitsa pole Slivo Sliven Svoge Rodopi Rakovski Radnevo Pazardzhik Opan Nessebar Maritsa Knezha Kavarna Ihtiman Devnya Oryahovitsa G. Toshevo Gen. Bolyarovo Berkovitsa Asenovgrad Alfatar Prepared underthe project of Strengthening Administrative Capacity at Local Level forImplementation 1- “Yes councillors Municipal 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ”. Source: Ramboll, 2007 Consultants 14 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 companies business Local 2 1 1 51 . NGOs 3 1 1 1 administration Regional - administration Central 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 259 CEU eTD Collection institutions.” (Interview N11). (Interview institutions.” helpless.feel could people then Even requirements. administrative “They or legal minimum to resort but come to us [a nationalall,Municipalitiesa very at late stage. havefor active strategy not public do participation NGO] to beg studies practices of haveshown good public not to participation of generalthe publichelp orif at them in drafting for the ordinancesThe procedures process. and programmes observed in casethe fight rule-making environmental from alienated against or deprived feel often communities Local experienced in applicationproject could hire consultants. or good Manyrequired. technical detailsbe fulfilled could not by NGOsunlessthe they are very NGOs could apply for EU-funded projects because often own financial contributionnational is strong Only D05). (Interview administration municipal vis-à-vis stand passive in“Priroda” and Ribaritsa). hand,On admit some NGOrepresentatives other the their in Teteven Centre Sustainability the (like life public from disappear could and municipality expertise background and they project good face difficulties of withoutthe the support is advantage main iftheir even But biodiversity. of area the in projects for eligible are NGOs Environment OP current the Under limited. very OPs under funding for NGOs of eligibility the and accession EU country’s the following Bulgaria left Switzerland) and US with local fundsgovernments. became Accessto critically low many after (from donors partnerships good had and projects environmental many implementing were NGOs local servicesmembership and fees. Interestingly inenough periodbefore accessionthe EU Local NGOs usually manage limited relying resources on providing rather on projects 260 CEU eTD Collection potential of the civil sector. Ribaritsa.They are visible in and respected local community in and resilience the show library and and centre community the of director the and municipality Teteven in Vit Cherni factleaderssomepublic NGO In are theiroperations. officials restart like the mayor of (Interview T05and If funding T07). is available many local NGO, nowcapsulated, could leaders arestill disappointed though there with local local authorities and access fundingto Nevertheless, them. with cooperate to willingness declare administrators municipal although administrations municipal of partners of status informal or formal on rely not usually do They Teteven). - tourism walking Dobrich, and in Teteven actions cleaning-up –Dobrich, youth the of education field (environmental narrow very in a actions undertake studiescase as and rule-making interviewsin local role important more a play point could out sector civil (Interviewstronger A N04). The usual case now is that local NGOs 52 assistance andadvicetheir environment when to investment threats and pose livelihoods for NGOs national asked have municipalities or villages small of mayors even and citizens localscampaignsagainst of are protection of nature NGOs.Groups the and protests always Not rule-making. acollaborative fuel to NGOs, national and local of mediation is there civicHowever could energy bechannelled that by or representation direct Hydropower plants are such case because of the erosion and drainage of water they cause. they of water drainage and erosion ofthe because case such are plants Hydropower 261 52 . CEU eTD Collection areas of areas of activity. primary their of one is this traditionally because municipalities than protection biodiversity more activebiodiversityThe NGO’s are participants (Interview N01). in protection financed are tourism municipalities so much aremore active not butin measuresdirect for supporting tourism development,investments in areas infrastructureprotected oreco investcapable time, to staff and money in them.If biodiversity projects protection municipal andcompetences sidelined are the becausemunicipalities in fully fall or interested arenot not do protection nature and biodiversity like Issues infrastructure. legalbecauseof the obligations and secondly, becauseof moneythe in poured this someleading are There areasof governance like management waste and air quality, first protection). soil (e.g. level sometimesOr competences. weak environmental this isto due policy andat EU national isOne reason lackfinancial of and human capacity deal to with such rich variety of Some of their exist competences haveareas). beenbut paper on not realised. protected for plans (management biodiversity in procedures coordination in participation mere theirlegalof varies:character powers from full scale in powers management waste to legislation, management, waste air quality, (Rambollhorizontal protection.” nature 4). The 2007, sectors: following in the are authorities municipal the of competences important most the present “…At legislation. environmental of sectors all almost concern which fragmentedMunicipal andpatchwork. authorities have competences of various characters, areas of local the are Whatenvironmental governance in Bulgaria? In general is picture the 8.2. Areas of local environmental rules 262 CEU eTD Collection because are not rooted in and interests the capacities rooted of local because arenot actors. life short have and in Kardzhali) in Dobrich, council protection environmental (the projects rule-making powers initiatives Alternative innovative rare. are rules appearas a resultof case studies and from nationalthe interviews. frame the Outside of delegated municipal in the found been have evidences and tendency stable no but efforts combined or activists for innovativeroom could beintroduced by governance local that practices NGOs, the Thereis actors. other a rules comparedto produce capacityauthority, to and resources legalthe council to authorization due and traditions in Bulgaria. They possess broadest the Local administrations are in the best position vis-à-vis other actors even towards municipal Rules and innovations managementwaste programs. management greensystemthe ordinance, ordinance; and environmental the and protection general rulesthe publicordinance are and on environmental order waste the protection, common most The performance. poor show municipalities scope narrow this within even environment].”In general (Interview N06). this is [the typical policy top-down butapproach priority first their be won’t it it, postpone will they coercion, legal not is there investments,sites. They roads, need tourist much more urgently investmentsdirect and if “They OPs. for municipalities] projects substantiate [the that strategies in areinterested develop to recently most and requirements legal the fulfil to is rationale leading the administration municipal the For discretion. municipalities’ at left are regulation of areas The local environmental rules areframed by nationalthe legal rulesdetermine that which Rules and limits General8.2.1. observations 263 CEU eTD Collection (Interview D04). rules municipal in strategic set priorities the on proposals project their base should municipal administration with rules stay strategic becausethese updated alsoneed they to of work in the interest without otherwise actors Other finding. national and EU without of municipal hearts the closer to faceleaders real that problemscould be solved not that also is rules such Producing projects. investment environmental for applications justify to accession rules in came fore. strategic the and Programs 2007the strategies to are needed typesrules. of Which two ofthesetypeslocalrules of set agenda? In the years after EU legal1) formal, formal strategic 2) andinformal 3) first they extent the to relate rules to are: rule-making and rules environmental of analysis for selected rules of types initial The Typesandimportance8.2.2. ofrules rulesthe definitely of informative and preventive nature. municipalCitizens too. mightbudget, comply with newthe regulations once published, so companies.Fines hardly are considereditem asanimportant balanceon the sheet of mainsanctions arenot driver change for in behaviourand for compliance of citizens and other Fines and governance. local on experts with interviews from and studies case from clear become has practice This orders. punitive and sanctions to resorting finally only and action for prescriptions issuing protocols, facts warning, of ways possible the all through achievein to are charge try bestservants who effectby selecting least sanctions. They go local at level enforcedThe rules are in mostthe practical (and limited) fashion. Municipal Rule enforcement 264 CEU eTD Collection hotels without wastewater treatment facility treatment wastewater hotels without (Interview T05)). on sanctions impose to not example (for municipality of policy the of because or T08) impose sanctions to businesses on not considerations personal (Interview are cases there imposing about andcollecting fines of from They people.the even insuggested that some sceptical were municipalities case all in administrations municipal The them. pay not could imposedsanctionsand even are minimumthe asalastthen at resort because offenders the that rule unwritten an is There experts. municipal and mayor the by manner administrative ininformal, taken are projects certain for application on decisions The T01). (Interview environmental – profession same the from people where experts of networks formal or informal expertstheirenforcement. or The informal rules could be developedrules communicated or through these - of discussdrafting to refer usually rules formal around revolve that rules informal The in their forums the issuesurban municipalitymany because too otherwise amendments oldwereneeded. the one to that aremaintenance of municipal andprotection and environmentproperty was passedin Dobrich not written publicorder, on ordinance new a instance For municipal ordinances. new or amendments down of massled treatment widespread that to collection waste) anddangerous waste, of municipalities to powers in new areas (mainly in management waste the – separate legislation.The amendments in themain environmental laws at national level delegate rulesEU have first been nationalthe into transposed legislation and into then the local The municipalities. in Bulgarian rule-making intensive an driving been has Europeanization 265 CEU eTD Collection life situations and are routine and repetitive like protection of green areas or handling of handling or areas green of protection like repetitive and routine are and situations life Different typerules of is rules the of (“small”second order rules). They regulate everyday managementwaste activitiesmost confinelocal level. to municipalities state, between waters on authority utility andwater companies whereas in inare times less rules. detailedwaste This is to compared sharedthe duepartly to visible.so Usually by issueslocal aretreated water rules only in provisions wherethe EPP many managementnot are local there rules dealing and actors the with areless water and facilities.collection systems, treatment waste andwastewater fact,to compared In cycle water the of ofcomponents – sewage pipelines, construction and the water pressingof obligationsarea Another EU and large scale investments is management water Sofiain - landfills the against forprotests civic in Suhodol,rights their defending (e.g. public general against the even the landfill providingfor services,the consultants developing rules and NGOsandproposals, project Dobrichcompanies the are players important regioncouncil, and administration municipal in active Stozher at an initialand everyone. because itsrelevance urgency the In of matter of the this to area beside an ones stage).dynamic most the are They association). landfill regional in positions for negotiations (of rules informal strategic, legal, – forms all in abound rules These rules. management in andresultlocal new developments.actors Such types of rules localare the waste They alsoaction are partnershipsfield andnetworks. newstructures, for most the create political of a lotresources, application.their timeThese rulesand expert attract to and considered rules of (“big”first order rules) becauseregulations of EU and money attached alternativeAnother typology has research. Some emergedthe of rulesin the course are 266 CEU eTD Collection and waste. noise biodiversity, soils, water, air, - municipality the for relevant sectors environmental all almost covering Plovdiv) in Teteven, (e.g. ordinance environmental of versions codified containing cooperatively high recently sanctions.Most some municipalities have adopted The greensystem Act. ordinance is– most of newest the them passed in 2009 and ordinance management waste wason based delegation the on WasteManagementof the topic-specific first The Administration. Local and Self-governance Local on Law environmentand property in some versions).is based It general on the delegation of the a general ordinance publicin on (andmaintenance order of andmunicipal protection regulated first were environment with dealt that rules municipal the years 20 last the For of municipality,the for contracts in not place. are partnerships, for etc. likeregulations statutory for environmental public council, rules for public procurements, and citizens in regulated actors are detail.NGOs andother Many organizational rules – council, municipal and mayor the of obligations the always Not behaviour. prescribed industrial of anddeterminingwaste transportation relevantsanctions in case of breaches of prescribeenvironmental conditions related to and procedures topics and–e.g. treating ordinances The rules. important as ordinances the consider administrations Municipal Legal 8.2.3. rules picking upmedical plants. fees for permitted cutting of trees and shrubs or sanctions in case of illegal cutting; fees for are detailed them there regulationsFor and sanctions dogs. stray in municipal ordinances – 267 CEU eTD Collection rules. local detailed imposing to administration the of commitment shows and issues local unique soils,is there value anadded because itbrings these rules people,the regulates down to same.the Nevertheless if ordinanceone codifies allrules on biodiversity,other and water In (Interviewterms of D11). rule-making and needed amendments would the procedure be make ordinance not management abiga separate does waste or difference for them problem becausewith them they dailywork on basis. will Whether there be on chapters asa ordinances of number bigger the consider not do administrators municipal The drawn. municipalities) could be asubject of detailed study one generalbut conclusion could be in most (like legislation of pieces more versus rules environmental all codifies with the main ordinances in casemunicipalities).The effect of having one ordinance7 which Table (see municipality to municipality from vary ordinances of scope and number The 268 CEU eTD Collection and programs define aims and priorities that have to be achieved with institutional, with achieved be to have that priorities and aims define programs and measureschartproblems andactions needed to for improvementand development. Plans the analysis of and situation environmental current the on based vision governance Municipalities environment govern also rules.with rules strategic These theirrepresent rules Strategic 8.2.4. Table 7Main ordinances in the casemunicipalities Teteven Lukovit Urban Dobrich Municipality Field/ Municipality of Teteven territory management atthe waste and keeping protection, cleanliness environmental on Ordinance Municipality of Lukovit territory cleanliness at the traffic safety and ofkeeping public order, maintenance and on Ordinance environment property the and protectionof municipal maintenance and order, of public Ordinance on ensuring General covers also this field ordinance general No special but the Municipality Lukovitin keeping cleanliness management and Ordinance on waste UrbanMunicipality of Dobrich territory cleanliness at the maintenance of the activities and waste treatment management of the Ordinance on the Green Waste system management Municipality of Dobrich system on the territory green of the protection development and on Ordinance No of Lukovit Municipality system on the territory green of the protection development and on Ordinance Municipality Urban Dobrich at theterritory of breeding of dogs registrationand on Ordinance Others No No 269 CEU eTD Collection mobilise all human, institutional, legal and financial resources. financial and legal institutional, human, all mobilise value.municipalityPlans should andprograms ensurethat moves in rightthe direction and this becausedo you not might–“do be fined”, have latter higherthe financial and practical role preventive and informative symbolic, more play former The years. 4-6 of in timeframe a outcomes expected with result-oriented are rules strategic the municipalities, for priority Whereas legal long-term and theirenforcementrulesstatic, more are is first the not protection. soil or biodiversity of sphere the in rules no almost but quality air and and plans)also local the but priorities and andfor management waste needs–more water strategies more – municipalities (bigger capacity governance environmental local to limits municipality. The passing of limited number of strategic rules (see rules strategic of number limited of passing The municipality. planslisted are andprograms other of as rulespotential strategic a host for one localof programmethe governmentalsoinclude sections on environment. 2 above Box In likedocuments strategic municipal the developmentplan, municipal the governance ManagementandAct Air Quality programme basedQuality on of AmbientAir Other Act. managementwaste Environmental Act, the of programme based on Protection Waste delegation on based (EPP) programme protection environmental are adopt municipalities by prepared municipalthe staff byand voted council.the commonare most The programs types both though even administration’s, in municipal documents strategic the be in The ordinances consideredmunicipal to are council’s sphere of whereascompetence responsible measures.these have authorities to been attached legislative,economic andtechnical measuresFunding (WMP Teteven, 62-63). and Table 8 ) reveals the reveals ) 270 CEU eTD Collection from the total funds 44 from total of the BGN less216 846 than 10 %of fundsthe come from the national For instance,agenda. in budgetof the municipal developmentplan for 2010– their dependence external on funding make them completely dependantEU andon The limited rules. strategic through of their resources attention municipalitiesdirect and municipalities in which areas the analyse to interesting is it view of point governance From funds.OPs includeyear to adoption its after in newprojects plan theaction couldthat be financed by municipal developmentplan Dobrich2007-2013 of urban municipality was everyupdated rules followsstrategic logic and the nationalEU of policy priorities. instance, For the objectivesthe and to relate of As priorities thecontent aconsequence OPs. underthe should They in them. defined priorities the to attention close pays administration municipal municipality the of and –NGOs businesses. local the actors this In and other respect As mentioned elsewhere rules arebasis strategic the for justification applications of project documentsTable 8Strategic in the casemunicipalities Teteven Lukovit Urban Dobrich MunicipalMunicipality Yes Yes Yes Plan Development Yes Yes Yes Program Protection Environmental Municipal Yes Yes Yes Program Management Waste Municipal No No programme dogs Stray programme; quality Air program; efficiency Energy Plan Dobrich 2020; Others 271 CEU eTD Collection social effects whichgravity of centre the of localare at policies. bring not alongdo direct economic that invest capacity) timeresources andto andother municipalities, of traditional competence the of sphere the outside and lack of intetest (and lack data: from of casestudiesandother the local capacity policies prepare to and projects of environmentalfeatures the leastAtlocaltwo at level governance context have emerged national level).and EU at also but level local at status obscure an maintains protection soil (e.g. funding interesteddeveloped in and areaswithout EU national legal and policy rules backed by 53 axis priority third this under projects implemented have Bulgaria in municipalities three Only restoration). and (preservation Environment planningthe for The period 2007-2013. third one is biodiversity protection substantive is three the priotities axes fourth technical (the assistance) the of OP landfill and cleaning-up of a river in Dobrich. Waste and water management are of two out municipalitiesin treatment Teteven and Lukovit, regional sewege andwastewater – the of problems pressing most the to priority give municipalities case the in reviewed municipal3 - budget The strategic rulesBGN (MDPDobrich 2010,p.40). 498 546 Web site of the OP Environment: http://ope.moew.government.bg/bg/projects/projectslist/cid/3. 53 . Not surprisingly, municipalities are also not also are municipalities surprisingly, Not . 272 CEU eTD Collection to organize the whole the administrationorganize anapplication. prepare to to Such a way of decision- They (Interview weeks T01). are pressuredby take deadlinesprocedures short and need issues like fast becausechoose need tracks otherwise projects to EU-funded formalthe pressing with dealing experts the and dynamic is administration municipal at work The and its team (e.g. in Teteven with EU projects team about for projects applications). national associations likedecisions NAMRBand BAMEE), adhocby taken mayorthe (within experts their and municipalities the among cooperation informal of forms are and general the actors public. withrelationships other In addition andcooperation there the or administration the within decision-making and communication internal the concern These administration. municipal of operation life real in exist practices informal Many “departmentalism, paternalism socialor exclusion.” (Lowndes 2005,292-293). behaviour,like “community leadership”; they or may underpin ‘negative’ frameworks like discussed (Lowndes 2005,292).Informal rules may formtake of ‘positive’ of patterns form the of customsunwritten rulestake of these and that codesshould be recognised and municipal administration andinformation power as acentreof exchange.The importance theystill and way informal arein an set are rules which for guides administration municipal by performed for future formalactions developmentcycle of environmental activitiesrules discussed other above are there of therules emerged from case studies and interviews the local at and national municipality,level. Beside informal about findings in Bulgaria LEG analysis of of mainfocus in the not Although and Informal8.2.5. rulesin a narrow sense, for the 273 CEU eTD Collection actors to make them take part in environmental governance. The administration drafts or drafts administration The governance. in environmental part take them make to actors obligationsmuchserveso asguiding not to but principles and common forground all formal fulfil to milieu administrative closed a in created are rules local general In informal channels with and legalcolleagues, guides etc. Internet, –contacts databases, use experts internally drafted When mayor. the of decision upon and administration the of capacity the on depending consultants to contracted or administration the within internally performed is rules of Drafting procedure. rule-making new a of initiation of timing and formalno requirements beside internal the of conditionsthe procedures ISO 14001about efficiency decision-makingthe of some comprise but negativeof rules. patterns Thereare enforcement– is with informal populated rules. of them Some as mentioned above ensure and adoption discussion, drafting, initiation, – rule-making of cycle whole The “units of young experts”like the EUprojects units. and conflictsdistrust old between of administrators generations new andthe people at the of recently most and communication internal delayed and slow of culture administrative overcome to well work rules These T01). (Interview apply should municipalities scheme settlementsthe prioritised referring and hedecided to which for ones the mayor the to and went briefedscheme experts the opened him was sector the about water a new When settlements. which for and apply should municipality the whether writing and send it to administration.theformal No isprocedure followed. theirput in proposal Theexperts donot mayor for approvalmakingapplicationproject wasTeteven observed related to process municipal at but rather go to him directly and discuss 274 CEU eTD Collection municipal administration when left at its discretion. On the other hand, they might be a be might they hand, other the On discretion. its at left when administration municipal for especially rule-making, for track fast provide and time save rules informal principle, In drawn. be could in rule-making rules informal of power the about conclusion general A capacity lowthe control by practiced municipal administrators. in and municipalities in Bulgarian living of standard low the in rooted principle a - easier sanction exist. Asarule thumb of the lessthe sanctions and less sanctioned -the people The enforcementinarea is which another informal whom,rules when about and how to ordinances and programs onbasis of indicators(Interview werepointed out T03). environmental of assessment for mechanisms missing the in Teteven example, For not. did municipalities case the whereas public made municipalities few only which EPP before municipal procedure reporting council and RIEW concerning implementation of yearly only is There loss. election mean could level political at which unsuccessful civilthe way leaderssociety. the In that and administrators avoid could being labelled as or bodies byindependent especially assessment, impact and monitoring for mechanisms formal strict without implemented and passed are rules environmental local Bulgaria In Kardzhali). in ordinances of drafting the with or unit; protection environmental obligatory whichfor program protection administrationthe decidedhold to public not hearingby not environmental with case law the was this municipality urban Dobrich andin (e.g. involvement thepublic strong any without them draft amends and them reports then rules, commissions was developed by a consultancy with inputs of the 275 CEU eTD Collection communicate with municipalities intensively and individually. and intensively municipalities with communicate municipal they experts RIEW havedo not timeto compared but andexpert capacity to level and only every areknown to These experts few area. national one cover experts changes picture the because nationalMoEW, itthe authority, is to far away from local Going level. expert at barrier no is there so them, with communication in basis daily on are talkingenvironmental to experts. They know their colleagues from the RIEW by name and memberswell. wasobserved each other Suchpractice inknow Dobrich and Teteven while governance levelsacross municipal, - national RIEW, - communicates frequently and its expertise andconsultancy assistance. A professional community of environmental experts In general there are two paths of Rule-makingrule-making8.3.1. capacity in terms of experts’ involvement – in-house - discussed 2000) Peters in previousthe three chapters. –hierarchies, governancethe structures community networks, and markets (Pierre and study fewchapters lines important fore. came the They to thought of are also related to making happensrules and how areshapedby local and circumstances.actors In casethe The next set8.3. Features of rule-making of findings from the research revolves departmentalismintroduce and paternalism practices. around downplay thebypass actors, collaborativeignore other or decision-making way to and questions – how rule- 276 CEU eTD Collection with the list with projects - a sensitive issue for all municipalities. all for issue sensitive a - projects with list the with environmentalhave final who the experts prioritieson the and word on action the with plan in collaboration produced are rules consultants to assigned when even But soils. environmental media management needed–from are waste andfactors biodiversityto and municipality becausecapacity. they muchrequire broader As ina resultexperts many sophisticated forThese rulesgovernance a solutionslocal of are too charted. authorities environmentalneed beassessed andfactors components and importantinterventions and environmentalstrategic For documents much larger expertise is required because the because municipal the administration inthere samethe way relies external on consultants. ifconcluded that such a critical threshold exists mightwell be above 100000people the mayorof to the commitment communitypersonal and experts, (Interview budget, have N06).municipalities Such From themunicipality). big case study to in(medium Dobrichpeople 70000 is it could population of beterms in environment like issues complex with capacity thresholdthe good for of that municipalitiesthe (Interviewargued N06) deal to sufficientpossess legal drafta good expertisein to act a jointed effort. Arespondent lawyers and experts environmental and experts, municipal of profile the into fit ordinances modelsthe forhomepages,there everyone’sso are use. The topics of municipal municipal the to uploaded are documents municipal All municipalities. of type similar with or neighbouring with information of exchange intensive reported municipalities case All municipalities. other from models transfer and compare experts municipal have experts the once draft examples The ordinances easy to are and templates. The 277 CEU eTD Collection consultants (e.g.in Lukovit). international from assistance the of and MOEW the of rules, EU of influence combined result the wasachievedLater any T01). success (Interviewwithout because of the consider mayorspersuade aregional to to neededlandfill were and inoption endthe municipalitiestightdeadlines to adapt andthey need to and Before yearsreporting. strict commandsthe anddirectives is there from top moneythe and expertise on poured with Along interventions. consultants’ external and above) from directives the following of main from pressure national leasttwo factors: (whichauthorities at in a way is theoldto way due rule-making environmental of in terms changing is approach traditionalistic this Still lastthe 20 years. in much moved not have things that impression an gets one municipality a of building the hardpersuade theirtimescolleagueschange their to style to Even of work. when entering administrative heedof the take to mentality of theircolleagues and managers. They have closed bureaucratic manner peopleused to Young with of work. ideas and initiatives need change.The mayors, even open-minded, with needold work to administrators who are in of power theirAndreforms. concentration handsthe slow predisposes paceof rather during previous the command-and-control system and later in turmoil of punctuated worked and studied They school”. “old the from still are mayors Most municipalities. Old administrative andhabits routines still are entrenched in practices the of Bulgarian Traditionalism8.3.2. 278 CEU eTD Collection The determination of a mayor to solve a problem is critical for the success of an initiative. an of success the for iscritical problem a solve to mayor a of determination The and consequently of rulesstrategic and programs -strategies, content the action plans. the governance programmeof of mayorthe define areasfor municipal the development Sustainablethe (e.g. Developmentoperations inSecondly,Centre Teteven). the priorities favourIf local they not a itdevelopdo can NGO, evennot too. properly, or suspend its responsibilities.The preferences of mayors the influence consultants), (NGOs, actors other municipalities environmental the areplacedexperts in differentunits and with different and theirexperts positions and general the on administrative case the In structure. of number the on decide mayors The municipality. the of representatives as decisions policy their and administration the of heads as powers administrative their – emphasised be should rule-making environmental in mayors of leadership the of features Two municipalities. smaller in low is experts) and institutions independent NGOs, (networks, Similarly, general publicthe an is active not participant also becausethesocial capital landfill). regional (e.g. investments big about decisions of in cases happens it it If does policy. mayor’s the correct or support control, to rule-making, environmental in least at passive, is - council municipal the - them above authority local The status. special this people’s of perceptions mayor’s to omnipotence governance also the practice confirms addition In municipality. of face the represents symbolically and legally but administration local alternatives governmentleadership. to He/she isonly not elected official and head of leadersand of is role personal decisivefactor becausemany therearenot leaders and the level local At municipality. one in governance the for critical is mayor the of figure The Role8.3.3. of leadership andpersonalities 279 CEU eTD Collection on thedrafted rules. practiceon rule-making In the cycle is controlled,managed and reported amendments andalternatives general andlater the public, including NGOscould comment is limited has research Municipal shown. asthe council could firstintervene and propose formally that actors could impactother this are theirbut capacity There process interestor administration. in municipal work at is that decision-making of system centralised the is point logical next a in LEG, leaders the of role central the of discussion the Following Local administrative “centralism”8.3.4. leadership. effect environmentalon rule-making indicate process apotential local for broader municipality adjacentandnational always the not These deedsalthough park. with direct cleaning-upactions andcontributing discussionsthe to of documentsstrategic of the municipalityTeteven has been promoting actively authentic local andfoods organizing in Vit Cherni village small a of mayor The Geopark. the – municipality the for landmark a of in Lukovit establishment the to led businessman local a of connections political and commitment personal The life. local in presence and initiatives visions, new with Parallel formalthe andto informal leadership mayors local the of other leaders emerge local ordinances (Interview N01). complianceand the performanceservicethe of of contractors citizens and companies with His efforts led establishmentto of a structure with sufficient staff and equipment control to qualitythe management waste of to servicespersonal attention and cleanness of city.the In afrontrunner municipality like mayor Haskovothe has shown leadership and special 280 CEU eTD Collection published although in most cases they are available for comments at municipal homepage municipal at comments for available are they cases in most although published be not might or might drafts The experts. legal municipal with collaboration in experts centralised of decision-making.patterns legal The rules by are prepared environmental The findings from observedthe rule-making in processes the case studies pointtwo at governance of processes: centre the at administration municipal place that advantages following the listed be could There word. final specificrequire in expertise even various areas.But then municipalthe haveexperts the rules the of could comefrom external asinconsultants case documentsof that strategic substance the on contribution Real supervision. mayor’s under experts by environmental x x x x EU funds into municipalthe budget. and national from flows financial from potential the realised have and initiatives Leadership of the mayor experts. Staff and subsidies from national and EUfunds. allocated andmanaged by administrationthe – itapplies own revenues, grants to Budget these experts could gain experience a good in handling various tasks. There administration. municipal isthe municipality a in experts environmental for Expertise - the municipal administration is supported by environmental and legal and environmental by supported is administration municipal the - – if there is a budget for environmental activities at municipal level it is it level municipal at activities environmental for budget a is if there – - in the field of environmental protection the usual place of employment of place usual the protection environmental of field the in - – the mayors– the of supportive leading are or many 281 CEU eTD Collection policy areas. containsbecause rules it of overarchingprocedure local andinterest importance in all local collaborative a such undergoes plan development municipal the Usually discussions). public with and groups in working actors local the of participation (with inclusive more is process drafting the administration the of will good of or requirements legal of case In actors. local other from inputs strong by interrupted not is administration municipal of domain in the decision-making of centralization The RIEW. the is reports these reviews that authority external only The oversight. community of type other or discussion is by program) proceeded samethe environmental inexperts a formal way without public protection environmental the on (particularly council municipal the to reporting The Dobrich (Interview D01)).of EPP in the like in it word a only change (or draft the vote and accept simply councillors strategies as documents important politically more the in even and administration the of expertise the on relies council municipal rules of types both For homepage. the on discussion public to cases most in and council the to submitted and experts informationbackground by municipalthe Thedraftis experts. reviewed by environmental council. documents strategic areassigned The consultants. They to are provided with arereviewedcomments.The drafts by municipal council’s commissions by and voted the substantial submit not usually do NGOs the and public general The weeks. two-three for 282 CEU eTD Collection usuallyare occur, if they processes, Such decision-making. collaborative guidedorganizing in traditions lacks and capacity enough byhave not does still projectsBulgaria in administration local The with external expertsprocesses. and fundinginsight providesgood a in constellation, actors’ capacities and boundaries of rule-making example This D01). (Interview details” some about (seemedia the by question “tricky” in Chapterinterest VI the of the public in need of publicdiscussions hearing discussion broader or based their on previous experience of poor of such type itwas decided adraft. Further prepare overburdened preferred aconsultantagainstto the - “the most we couldbeing who experts environmental by the led was surfaced get that process The municipality. is some very urban Dobrich of EPP new the of development the on up followed and observed have I ownership programs over the by localthe communities.” (Ramboll 2007, 122). shouldpartners beinvolved of with thepurpose developing real more partnership yet and feeling of councillors, municipal and consultants from contributions use to ready seem municipalities The meet. to have municipalities the which obligation, administrative of Environmental isPrograms more asaclosedlike regarded process, Protection some kind of development process concludesof inEPP thesame vein developmentthe “that of the on report A community. local and businesses NGOs, council, municipal involve to confines these beyond goes formally only and administration government municipal the within limited practically is rule-making that is studies case the from finding clear Another Closedrule-making8.3.5. system 283 CEU eTD Collection “localism is the king” (Bull king” the is “localism decision-making upthe open importantto Is it process in a governance context where procedure. collaborative a follow to administration the obliging rules procedural special of or 1995-96) in in Dobrich (existed Council Environmental Public a of establishment of form the take could system open more a of institutionalization The hermetic. remain will system the decision-making of power the share should it that decides administration municipal could explain that aconcept centralised1991) the (Page, administrative system. Unless localism legal of case a is rule-making the direct to authorities municipal of discretion The discussions municipalthe (e.g. weresponsored developmentplan of Teteven). Dobrich 2020 plan).In thetransition period democratic practices like forums and public municipal council. In the same city when on one occasion municipality launched a launched municipality occasion one on when city same the In council. municipal by led the was plant polluting the against struggle the but NGOs environmental active Kardzhali, acity environmentalwith acute problems, surprisingly,In any not are alsothere activists. local or NGOs by led traditions protection environmental established no are there in Lukovit Conversely, job. the do to potential the have experience Dobrich and members Teteven NGOs andactive of citizens with professional and project with the official together became process of the and owners to potential In authorities. knowledge with citizens interested and leaders local local, and national – NGOs are There situation. current the on based answer explicit an give not do sources other and studies case The rules? the of monitoring and implementation formulation, to contribute and task et al. 2010, 1008)? Are there actors ready to take over this 284 CEU eTD Collection theoretical theoretical space occupied by civil society (Steel localNGOs asthe civilto onlyEven though society withina subsetactor. largerthe Civil society has been in interpreted this dissertation by theoretical and practical reference Weak civilsociety 8.3.6. powers. its strengthens civil society the and reforms undergo governments NGOs tomanage or control some rule-making process is not out of question if local 2020 plan municipalthe compared to developmentplan A possibility2007-2013). for decision-making theconsultants-driven than asmore productive Dobrichprocesses (e.g. collaborative open of cases the considered municipalities case from administrators signA good in actors. perspectives thisnon-state of direction is municipalthat measuresstrategic and in addition could build the knowledge upon and alternative and legal its and policy environmental municipal legitimise could processes collaborative decision-makinga proper heavy such bear.However, should be process too to not change not Rules solution.one every do day and burden the onadministrationorganize to reconcileIn conclusioneasy extremes itis these to only notof practice andthe suggest to signed declaration. the outside authorities the –municipality,regional andthegovernor utilitywater company - campaign of simple personal commitmentssustainable use, only to water person one of local population under poor economic conditions is in getting more jobs. To what To jobs. more getting in is conditions economic poor under population local of theiractiveown in on not campaigns,people are and actions initiatives. other Theinterest faceand the actions of civil represent society local at level.local Casestudies show that et al. 2007, 37) NGOsand 2007, their leaders 285 CEU eTD Collection acknowledge the need of acknowledge needof more the active civil society inbut practice andeven on paper there advice in rule-making and inin processes LEG general. Environmental experts Municipal administrations perceive only NGOsaspartners in seektheir not theory and do establish consultancy companies (Interview T01). or join to towns home their left and consultants business into turned have experts NGO them havesomeof have closedand down hibernated others waiting times. for Some better with years of experienceprotection, haveportfolio and ceasedtheir project operations, in environmental background with NGOs local result a As NGOs. environmental local providein reality and resources ideasas expected opportunities, (Steel NGOs have financialcapacity submit expertto successfulor applications. EUdid not fundingunderOP Environment biodiversitywas reducedto area where mainly big national accession,after EU the in thefirst planningLater, period 2007-2013their eligibilityRibaritsa). applyto for “Priroda”, Teteven; of Centre Sustainability (e.g. municipalities with period more funding the NGOs and lead schemes they to intook wereopen partnership funds donors’ (Interviewand dependanton sustain. are D06) to In pre-accessionthe small, Local NGOsaretoo discouraged. and spontaneous campaigning occasionally active membership few (with Club exceptions –Ecologic Dobrich) and their leaders feel no with but leaders with administrations, municipal by sidelined underfunded, are They municipalities. in Bulgarian NGOs’ environmental local of picture grim a draw ground the from Evidences policy? environmental local but international and national only not 37) that transfer localthat knowledge andinform expertise to and reshape (Steel messengersNGOs mediators, inare and partners extent local environmental governance et al et al . 2007, 51) to . 2007, . 2007, 35- . 2007, 286 CEU eTD Collection detached from from detached nationalthe NGO community and its initiatives and capacity. stay and NGOs non-environmental other with and other each well with cooperate not Dobrich andcases) whichthe Lukovit lefta negative mark on them. The local NGOs do In addition,sometheirgovernance.leaders of have been affiliated political to parties (see membershipbasis, theiractivities areoccasional areaof environmentaland narrow cover hand,NGOs suffer from systematic economichave shortcomings or not strong –they do certain mayors of personal NGOs (Interviewsattitudes On towards other the D04, T05). this administration of the capsulatedTo state process. could beadded the negative inclusive more prevents rule-making municipal traditional of resilience the hand, one On benefited the whole municipality (see the examples in 8.3.3. above). although representatives; natural somethem of are leaders whose skills and devotion have Kardzhaliand community The broader recognise(Interview them N01)). not as itsdoes is person one ausual It is case that NGO one inactors. (e.g. population and other Lukovit isovercome theirNGOs needto identityproblem Another that localandthe connection to municipalities. of and best isolation of feeling The parasites. and hunters times project being of them blaming – hostile being behindinternal or administrativeexperts them could become towards even capacity.The attitude dominatesthem, even ignores them managementsupport not and replacesdoes them with non-local the moodleaders NGO Some complained this process. encourage rulesno to are thatmunicipal of the NGO community in the case 287 CEU eTD Collection management. The lureof available funds underOPsresulted in extensive rule-making of amendments of new ordinances most notably andadoption in fieldthe of waste local have dramatic to Delegation change. undergone level of powers has induced rules informal and strategic legal, local The municipalities. Bulgarian with cooperation and (especially NATURA 2000)national authorities intensified hierarchical biodiversity pressure, dialogue management, water and waste in communitaire acquis EU with compliance facttheir dominance in becamelocal at afactlevel but accession. EU ensure To after the legislation national the into transposed being while period pre-accession the during of rules and rule-making. the content the EUrules The national wereon actors, agenda shaped legally,institutionally and practically localthe environmental governance –the in redthreads hasthe Europeanization beenoneof dissertation the because EUrules have The European8.4.1. moment Europeanization8.4. fore. the come to partners givenfind und uphope alternative wayssurvive to until newand sources opportunities, biggerinitiatives external conditions. under better Also leaders the of NGOs have not into transformed be could that - basis voluntary on mostly – projects specialized small brightside,activities)On the local factors. NGOs have their niche and have undertaken and visions viablemembership, of and funds of sources alternative of lack (fragmentation, administration funds,the external of (access to attitude and population) and internal image and current In sum,the performance of local environmental NGOs is dueto poor 288 CEU eTD Collection Euro exceedsand 4 timesin budget the annual of the municipality. 54 EU-funded projects. influence the of external national and international whoassistexperts municipalities under Englishwith good overtime. They the work highest and ready are exposedto to extent to municipalities is well newcomers. these depicted They through are young, well educated, heaviest. The effect asanew perspective Europeanization of for Bulgarian the urban municipality).In any their is presence case, though, visiblethe - and their workload different and underdirectorates different deputy mayor’s supervision in(e.g. Dobrich EU experts work in closemunicipality they could beplaced incooperation differentunits. placeAt one theenvironmental and (in oneenvironmental units. administrativethe projects According of EU to andevery structure roomat positions in filled have in experts New Lukovit), developments. rapid the with deal to at administration another theymunicipal at people new are least not and consultants money, in objectives, new about brought The high tide of Europeanization has changed local governance landscape in Bulgaria. It Newlocal 8.4.2. EU projects staff reorganizations wereimplemented andnew staff employedfight structural battle. to the result a As treatment. wastewater like problems long-standing to solutions fundsthese because such get investmentsas possible as hard also to are work to experts never”has The momentmarked “now fervour or period. the of municipal leaders and The funds areenormous infrastructure. in environmental projects local substantiate would that documents strategic To provide perspective regardin this theEU funding of the water cycle in Gabrovo is for around 64 mil. 54 for the scale for the of municipalities and available moreover for ashort 289 CEU eTD Collection on waste and water management. In the EPP of management. of Dobrich EPP In the and water waste urban on municipality these two deals EPP with all E.g. environmentalmoney but andcomponents factors is spent mostly municipality). urban Dobrich of plan development municipal the (e.g. accordingly adjusted under close scrutinymeet applicationthe to of experts the requirements and if needed by with the consultants the mayor’s rulesproduced The relevant are strategic sanction and infrastructure asamain priority (Interview T01). this of improving to committed have programs governance their in Mayors municipalities. for longvisible in smaller the municipalitiesclearly is management and where water waste investments were priorities local and national of time coincidence the planning of process the in properly neglectedcoincide very well Although is and theground. resistance involvednot there no on in national management EU, waste Teteven). (e.g. infrastructure and local priorities and nowmunicipalities needmoney exactly in fields these condition and of water poor the dueto there they interviews The willcase municipality options. at for other go in that suggest fact are Municipalities prioritiesreplace those with not could their even ones, own if hypotheticallyenormousmanagement managementand water - comprise lion’s the share the of budget. fundsmoney is provided by andnational 80%) EU (around priorities The budget. - waste available(Marshall municipalFor 2005). projects funded underEnvironment OP in Bulgaria the policies,preferences and practices, participants within local system of governance in changes of driver main is programmes EU of implementation and to negotiation The theseEuropeanization8.4.3. process –atop-down 290 CEU eTD Collection are delegated to local authorities. Although municipalities resort to legal localism in localism legal to resort municipalities Although authorities. local to delegated are indirectives transposed nationalthe are legislation and andobligations from powers there The legal rules follow the top-down logic even in a more straight they embraced idea the andwelcomed money. the forward way. The EU directives requirements investmentsthese but clearly are needed in municipalitiesthe and imposedwere infrastructure from above becauseof implementationthe of EU the environmental local of improvement on projects The D11). (Interview down.” dumps They stick.the say accordingwe needbutclose to to dumpsdown the and we close requirements…EU Wejump stick,whatdo accordingwe needthe according not to to to ininterviewees all reiterated case municipalities theimportance The of EU requirements. “The leadership. the of powers increased and dividends political benefits, financial the of EU environmentalThe rules have in become acatchword local political because rhetoric legalpromoting astrong regulation and measures. strategic of stage initial an at is EU the also where area an protection, soil of case the is This by covered local the policies andnational rules because at level issuethe is important. not areas whichlocalpriorities.are set There policy runs parallel are not top-down that to andpoliticalpressure willleave not rules do money strategic the and time for independent fundingof EU-bound the of municipal inprojects. So, politicaladdition top-down to Table 3aboveprovidesdeadlines example another them,too. applied of dominancethe to shortest the and them to is allocated money of bulk the but protection) noise and system with airprioritiesamong quality,6 are (together areas condition river,of town green the 291 CEU eTD Collection new features andtrends. instep theirlife first cycle nextEuropeanization’s the will could presume chapters one that only is show facilities infrastructure modern of construction the Since region). Lukovit and of weary establishment prolonged process of regional landfill associations (notably for was manifested among municipalities in thecooperation in regional byprojects a set of problems. political the another instance, For pose games struggles this andstrategic limitations, capacity these to addition In N08). (Interview activities these of run successful withinyears 2-3 is abig challenge.Some interviewees in expressed doubts smooth the and everydaymanage gigantic To to financialmatters. compared of such a scaleresources is responsibilities of burden the and understaffed is It projects. big such of management Nevertheless municipal administration iswell trialsthe for not of prepared andpreparation Europeanization8.4.4. –chapter one Dobrichurbanmunicipality – http://www.dobrich.bg/index.php?s=nl&id=2097) . electrical electronic and waste, waste oils, end-of-life vehicles waste tyres.” (published atthehomepage of household, construction mass and spread waste, the including packaging waste, waste accumulators, legislationwith national, aswellthe asto be introduced the new moments in the management of normative actWMA with The them. main objecitive of the current ordinance is to synchronize local directives of theEuropeanUnion,related to this field, having the in mind compliance of the main government, Europeanregional development aswell charter, asDirective 75/442/EEC on waste and other 55 explanatory note tothe draft provides insights in the logic of the top-down process submittedpublic to discussion on Dobrichthe urban municipality homepage. The new ordinance isIn January drafted. a draft2011 management of waste ordinance was swiftly with amendments. the In some somany new casesthe introduced are aspects a that decidingwhenintroduce new rulesand to how with ordinancesthe they usually proceed “The submitted draft isprepared according to the Europeanlegislation – European ofcharter local self- 55 . 292 CEU eTD Collection mostly by initiative of the legal and environmental experts. The state does not have legal have not does state The experts. environmental and legal the of initiative by mostly happens It ordinances. local the into legislation national the transfer to how and when decide could and localism legal of field in the are municipalities rules legal Concerning The national steering hasdirectand indirect effects local on legal and strategic rules. defend municipalities’ interests. associations municipalitiesthe –of andmunicipal of environmental - representand experts national of representatives two and mayors three Only small. is members level municipal by MoEW). Inthe steering committee of OP Environment of out 53 members the quota of national the funds like for Enterprise management the of environmental activities are run Policy for Environment Directorate within the Ministry of Environment and Water and Environment of Ministry the within Directorate Environment for Policy ministries. Themanaging authority of OP Environment2007 –2013is the Cohesion shapebroadly localthe workshops managedagenda. OPsare andoverseen by the municipal leaders.The national legislation, national national strategies, meetings and management politicaland the water converge and economic interests of national and environmental benefits nationalintersectionof of EU, point are and local Waste interests. and employment money, provide that infrastructure in environmental investments lastyears national in environmental policy because has become close translation ofEU well policy.as The discourse Europeanization to arguments adds discussion This tier? this within works governance multi-level How state. the of powers informal and administrative legal, the without potential full its reveal not would Europeanization of power The 8.5. The State and the municipalities 56 (also 293 CEU eTD Collection 56 in up stand should they rules the with comply to fail they if that saying meeting national a at mayors addressed Borissov Bojko Minister Prime The N10). (Interview management waste on expert national one shared husband” a good of vision, long-term no is there see the municipalitieshow don’t sanctions,I not “Ifare there protection. could be active, environmental of field the in especially direction, right the in municipalities push to means another is sanction state The him.” sanction we dump, illegal an is there if him, does not meet his obligationscould fine to fullhim/her extent, for non-compliance. that obligationsthe of be of mayor part the consideredto in management waste the is,and RIEW Asthere oneis seniorprogramme ismanagement officialwaste no the programme, discretion, of municipality of field RIEW the in again put itwe “If sanction a mayor EU funding and this is the real driving force for rule-making. Whereas EPP adoption is with alistHaving document areas. isstrategic of projects a a prerequisite for national and inproposals theirsubstantiate project prioritiesthese these to intotheirtranspose EPPs define rules the of applying money. for EU Municipalities same and runthe course inEnvironmentset OP management, and– waste water andbiodiversity - protection impacted rules are Local strategic in adifferent way. Firstly, national prioritiesstrategic ordinance regional the lawfulness. its exercisesover control governor discuss and explainof adoption a the localafter thebenefits However, (Interview D07). to meetings informational of methods employs but implementation the force to mechanism http://ope.moew.government.bg/en/management. 294 CEU eTD Collection 57 waste – law by minimum required the with complies reality in LEG The ambitions. and playersregional,national scalestrategic at EU or with theirenvironmental own agenda efforts of municipalitiesdiscussion thedissertation. of case The studies showed aclear tendency of focusing of the question oftheimplicationsup the of “the local” whole the (Goss 2001) throughout to takeThe researchscale 2001).emphasis (Goss and power identity, on evidences from ground the brings proximity, carephysical - words in other interests, oflocal and practices their traditions, local own backyard. lens the of through perspectiverules is and local the economic nature factor: conditions, governance multi-level within governance They environmental local mapping in factor third A do not myfront “Notin 8.6.1. yard” appear as 8.6. Local circumstances anexception. rather municipalitiesplayers instrong likethis not are area.Projects in Geopark the Lukovitare traditionally and topic financial hot a not is It country). whole the for projects municipal few (only tendency this exemplifies Environment OP from projects protection biodiversity local for engagementwith environmental governancea larger on scale. low The in interest environmental arguments andcommitment of local leaders. real arethe These arguments Potential legal sanctions and real funds trigger much bigger responsiveness than pure notget any money from EU and Borissov does notgive us money.” frontof municipal council and community and say “I broke the rules and that is why we do http://www.monitor.bg/article?id=233276. 57 295 CEU eTD Collection survive or are capsulatedsurvive in are or small activities. Environmental species arerare inexperts to one struggle NGOs Local rule-making. inclusive more towards administration municipal with capacity changelocal thisandactors to not strategy staticare behaviourThere of longnew old after areproduced Teteven programs have the ones that expired. programs should landfillwaitcycle and all water take theirtime andeverything else includingregional like drafting of new (Interviewprojects big that confirmed experts environmental municipal with interviews L01).The NGOs. Asenvironmental and society a civil resultpassive of comfort the having pressing itnot are that mighttasks remit to them allows elites happen administrative local of discretion Such like discretion. municipal and in self-government local of therealm in the rule-making case better enforce of islegal there no is One reason that mechanism of higherthe sanction authorities to and authorities. environmental national or regional the from pressure by driven occasionally only and experts) environmental the of often (most municipal administration of timing The exact it. of advantage take andforms of rule-making is largely at convenience administrations local the and localism strategic and legal of case clear a is Rule-making Legal 8.6.2. localism areas network (“notin my front yard”) orinprotected rare casesthe implementoppose EUfundedeither projects. rule general a as municipalities biodiversity with dealing When with environmentalstrong pillar. Thinking and doing outside this box is arare endeavour. non-traditional areas likeor climate soil protection, change sustainable or development management, clean(in innovative cover biggerairthe waters, not cities) protection do but 296 CEU eTD Collection infer that biodiversity is not a priority policy area that is backed by investments and strict and by investments backed is that area policy priority a not is biodiversity that infer could one municipalities case of rules strategic and legal of analysis the from addition In (Interviews of opportunities N07and network the Interview N05). principles, the andof sites and restrictions proposed communication ofthe MoEW of the improper the also was leadership local the of reaction defensive instinctive this investmentsof fears that inout localnetwork economy will be damaged. One reason for (Interview Municipalities N08). p.eq. the development opposed of NATURA 2000 in the face of a pressing deadlinefinalise of 2010 to inthose conglomerations above 10000 facilities treatment and water in small conglomerations under 10000population equivalent policy of in MoEW the periodshowedthe preferences 2005-2009 inthe investmentsand in waste coalition ruling The agenda. local and national stronger politically by bent be could in them priorities the investments environmental for rules EU of introduction the Despite Local 8.6.3. interests andenvironment administration. municipal the by driven are initiatives rule-making all practice saying“municipal that (Interviewcouncil L07). work” counsel In to not is to there ironical an shared councillor municipal One voting. and observation to work its limits council municipal like body representative a Even companies. and cities big of direction medium-sized municipalities areespecially affected becauseofthemigration of experts in and pollution the Zagora cityfrom of case Stara the of a nearby military base). Small andin (like hazards health big of case in unless matters environmental in much so interested not is public general the and government) local the for working them of (most municipality 297 CEU eTD Collection campaigns. national through or procedures SEA or EIA within considerations environmental defend and interfere to able been have NGOs environmental national only cases such In lands. and economic benefits andgains direct the for local community from pricethe of their seaside.Municipal leadership has been of developmentsthese supportive because of social the along and mountains in in many the places landscapes and nature the irreversibly residentialresorts, villages and complexes, wind andsolar energy parks have destroyed andaffects areas local nature environmental governance in a negative Newski aspect. sensitive in highly culminates protection environmental with interests local of conflict The for regional landfill site of could for dragon years (Interviewchoice T01). the or association of establishment the like decision important municipalities, of associations landfill regional in the as interests conflicting somehow with partners have not in principledo among themselves. cooperation good In case they are equal municipalities The areas. biodiversity common sharing municipalities between partnership a working mechanismcome across have I not ones. wouldstable lead that institutional to several between shared are but municipality one of boundaries administrative within fall course near Lukovit. Another part of this conundrum is that protected areas usually do not investments obstacle and support even in sensitive asin areas nature thecasewith the golf enforcement.In general,municipalities perceive biodiversity more asan protection 298 CEU eTD Collection managementmanagement, and water areas wheremoney is pressure and state poured waste with dealing with preoccupied is agenda administrative and political hand, one On integration. scale full and coherence without patchwork a is policy environmental real (or negligible)impactonnationalandEUdecision-making closed centralized administrative manner with local actors, littleinputfrom andwith no approach environmental problemsthat ideas, and fragmentarily (and ifpressed to)ina andnationalincentives, capacitythatdependonglobal,EU and funding and financial continuumstrong-weak – the LEG in Bulgarian municipalitiespersistently seekcooperation with and national EU authorities to impact their decisions at the momentactors and tocarry outsoundandcomprehensive localenvironmental policy, and to would be placed at the communicate and cooperate withother local population, businesses, NGOs andother local end of environmental considerationswill highonpolicy put agenda andtoactively to governance ofcommittedandactivemunicipalauthorities with resources and (political) andanalysedobserved in Bulgaria. If we define local strong environmental governance as The ideal typegovernance of could bejuxtaposedwith thereal image of the governance in negotiated decentralized publicand settings between cooperation, and private actors”. co-ordination horizontal on based governance” “network - “new” or state by the steering implyinggovernance” hierarchical and vertical of command,processes and control, old -“ (2004) Sedelmeier and Schimmelfennig of classification the to according new model of BulgarianisWhat current the local governance in environmental –old or matters 8.7. Strong or weak local environmental governance with municipalauthorities with limitedtopoor administrative . In general . In local 299 , CEU eTD Collection established and support initiatives donor eitherthrough – Swiss programme – Kardzhali Wheretheir(e.g. health local and Zagora). comfortand Stara capacity was voiced environmental andconcerns mostly in adefensivewhen mode- to isthere threat municipalat administration.are onlyThere exceptional cases where local people have municipalities,economic andsocial poor conditions, centralization and of resources power Bulgarian of majority of size small – governance of factors internal by also but funds EU for eligibility limited globalization, migration, population – developments external the by administrationthe Outside social the capital and community experience has been drained strategically processes. oriented local of anddriftauthorities andattention them away from real collective-choice and patinathe administrative of time traditions, the of EU funds pressure up soak capacitythe administration, understaffed The decisions. and thinking collaborative enforce to initiatives as community administrations The act waysand not resources. promote do and leaders to staff its and leadership municipal by found solution a be should there problem, a is there – municipality the by problems environmental of administration about mostly is dissertation in the analysed and fieldresearch the during observed as governance environmental Local change,etc. openly lobby business municipalities and even– protect interests detrimental environment), the to climate happens opposite the sometimes where (area protection nature protection, environmentalformally covered agenda or allocationwithout – soilof resources policy are exercised. hand,there are still other On the areas that empty localpages on 300 CEU eTD Collection importance also at local level (e.g. soil protection). Upper-level authorities could authorities Upper-level protection). soil (e.g. level local at also importance Whatis local more ifactors. isEU andnationalon topic one not agenda itis of low of localdetermine that authorities their activities and formal the involvement of scope of environmental Firstly,governance. objective are there legal the competences constrains to Local environmental governance is and alsofunction national supportive of strong and EU along seaside). the of new againstconstructions holiday level protests villages (e.g. in Mountain Strandzha any are If there alternative solutions. they without andcooperative emerge atnational rule-making decision-making, power, of centre real the is still and was administration municipal The functions. governance or actions messages, personal and uneven community.The capacity and limited impact are local of other actors spontaneous, to the of behalf on act and speak administrations municipal The rules. environmental managing of rule-making process the and deciding forms on scope, and of power in role vital and visible most the play him/her under administration the and mayor The funds,by local targeted people and leaders, andby initiativesevery at governance level. participation in local environmental governance is achallengebe addressed needs to that implementingunderOPs. In projects sum, building-up the and maintaining of civilstrong applying and when companies consultancy external prefers or administration the within positions new instead introduced has which municipality from support of lack and Ribaritsa, inleft they were alone shortage andslowly to funding due be factors ceased to (Sustainabilityin NGO – like aformor Teteven) of of grassroots Center “Priroda”, 301 CEU eTD Collection more experiencedmore rules administration in create These andto EU context. consultants The subject of local by EU environmental rules and values, and backed by substantial funding. instrategies many 2)andthe rules above strategic needareas (see Box for good is fuelled ordinancesframework Plovdiv). (Teteven, They develop are entitledplans to and green areasandin almostall environmentalother issues oflocal importance with years12-13 (Interview ago.“ municipalities L03).Now legislate in waste management, municipal and cleanliness. property weak in „Things rather field were the of environment hardly any municipalities to delegated otherestablish to environmental rules. Only were 10 yearsthere ago rules Local environmental governance hasgainedthan positions first newthe through legal powers those included inenvironmental governance in Bulgaria elements.these according to the generalIn thenext4). 2009, pages I willand Stoker shortly review of the progress local ordinance classic -the (how) and process (who) governance issues actors (Chhotray subject(what), on publicThe thesis has discussed governance by mainthree reference to elements of local rulesorder, – 8.8. New era for local environmental governance and rules be appliedcurb misuse to -therule of powers unmaking. mechanismsand management) cooperation waste control policy (e.g. stronger area could in one practices and rules of level primary the is level local If ground. local on established as well introduce new rulespractices and as anda corrective to tendencies procedures rules has been marked by emerging openness codification, topics, to 302 CEU eTD Collection knowledge and skillsenvironmentalcarry to out rule-making andLEG. contribute to local From nationallevel to aremanythere trainedexperts and experienced, with localities. in their infrastructure in environmental ininvestments boom a witnessing after councils callthe became more management receptive to for better of environmental goods municipal the and teams their mayors, The accession. EU following turmoil administrative municipalities have gained experience andconfidence firstthe after years of legal and rule-making of andowners dedicated authors In this process. sense Bulgarian mean environmental not better rules does More governance iftheirnot are actors Table 9 Findings about the subject of rules in LEG rule-making Suitable level of Codification New rules Findings participation. type of rules governancelatter shouldinformation aimat as astart sharing, andacceptance implementedlocal at enforcedand level with social broader In the and economicbe support. should rules of type former The change. climate biodiversity, – non-local as managed management, waste air quality, urban environment, areinherently others perceived and summarizedfeatures are in Table someWhereas 9below. typical are there local issues – quality Predominantly at local/regionallevel –waste and wastewater Combined atEU/national/regional/local -biodiversity, climate change Emerging themes (biodiversity, climate change (energy efficiency), soil protection) New governance issues like regional landfill cooperation systems green and management Waste Notes management, air 303 CEU eTD Collection are shown in Table shown are as well importanceas the of capacity competence, and from impacts higher of actors tiers business interested in service provision and rarely in supporting campaigns. These features only whereas interested NGOs and the in civil matters strategic society are weakand alsobecause they are local Mayor’speople. leadership is critical.The municipal council is lead community the they to have potential the because of but their powers representative and - traditionally and legally – LEG in power of centres are administrations local The Committee Regions). of the functions andrepresentative of some mayorprojects leaders the (e.g. of Dobrich the at pilot rhetoric, the outside locally interest and initiatives support, less with initiatives example,below.For 10 climate change theme hasbeen driven by national and EU main authorities with still inentrenched competence fewnarrow, areasas shown in Table making andsharing of capacity shrank. The andpositions vis-à-vis powers local governments and of scope collaborative the decision- in first Europeanization, the years of EU membership, alternative have these lost actors partnerships local environmental outside governments and state era In authorities. the of local level. influentialstrong periodIn pre-accession appeared like actors NGOs and at solutions sustainable providing and problems environmental resolving in actions guiding collaborative over governance ways government’s of structures reaching goals and have sources illuminatedstudies andother The case prevalence the of hierarchy of but national, EU and global environmental objectives. environmental global and EU national, but problem visions strategic with nationalof the actors and not serve solutions only that local 10 below. An open challenge is how to reconcile the distance from the from distance the reconcile to how is challenge open An below. municipal administration and council are the are council and administration municipal 304 CEU eTD Collection not authors of of authors rulesnot and owners of rule-makingthe process. also are society civil the of part active most the as NGOs and general, in community, The challengedlikeso do municipal by the even local to by withpower actors actors council. policy andfunding Traditionally processes. butalso procedurallymunicipal rules discussedare not the or legitimize documents formal such However, perspectives. many board on discussed and elaborated in way a structured – with public bodies andtake that procedures environmental municipalof rule-making. cases(e.g. In rare development plans) rules are local collaborative open and efficient no is There administrations. municipal the at The local legal rulesand aremostly strategic developed in a closed administrative system Table 10 Findings about the actors in LEG authorities’ impact EU and national ofInclusion actors Capacity to rule-make Leadership Findings Instructions and capacity building and funds–positive capacity and and building tendency Instructions Distant from the local conditions – negative tendency The local NGO, business are not involved actively opinions participation, informal practice of neglecting ordownsizing the external Only in implementationand Concentrationof powers municipal inthe administration – Local environmental experts lawyersand mostly onordinances business) (NGO, leaders local Other Concentration of powers inthe mayor,weak municipal council Notes formalprocedures with requirements minimum fundingand for initiative, drafting 305 CEU eTD Collection administrations aswell as in NGOandlocalthe leaders. localthe developed capacities. As isa resultthere more expertiseand newskillslocal at involvementlocal and national andauthorities aiming for NGOs achieving at quality better and in local rule-makingof features as issues.wellprocess as learningthe trainings processes through for these summarizes 11 Table future. wishful a still is parties all Theof involvement the and nationalparticipation public for requirements minimum with are rules procedural the addition, andIn EU consultantsnewnegativedelays, policy – to results slow adaptation objectives and hermetic process. haveefficientadministrative manner.Nevertheless, this manner discretion of aided someleads to and asclose decisions as because the possible taken are peoplethe and usually to further in an The legal localism discussed in all of feature the cases isrule-making three astrong – applications lucrative for the investmentprojects. municipality). and shelves expertisethe wereputon work Years of replaced by urban in Dobrich area maintained well for award and Council Public Environmental andpractices have beenabandoned thatinitiated after projects the them ended (e.g. rules good Some implementation. their for responsibility the share would community that by proceeded administrationthe make desire capacity strong without or to them public, so rules andplans. are The latter forstrategies administrative useand their drafting is consideredonly drafting nextthe for This period. applies ordinances to butmore to The rules become usually a closed after book being and could adopted be seriously 306 CEU eTD Collection thesis is a centre of power and decision-making thesispolicyis of power recent and acentre the processes processes alsoenvironmentalareas Local government as mentioned protection. elsewhere inpolicy the other among covering jurisdiction multi-task broadest with one the is government local the authorities local and environmental all From governments. local to RIEW in and LEG processes the general is hierarchical the –from structure MoEW through rule-making the defines that structure governance main the Still tiers. higher from actively cooperate or with actors are subordinated to thesisthe local actors throughout inprocesses and local actors environmental about governance. As itwas shown Multi-level governance perspective becomes clearerhavingafter reviewed the findings 8.9. Multi-level governance Table 11Findingsabout the rule-making process Capacity system Closed rule- Traditionalism centralism Localadministrative Legal localism Findings making Low capacity strategicin rules EU national consultantsand Learning process, betterquality context EU needs, investment by the Driven of interest from NGOs businessand administration Close to the people, efficient –positive In exceptional cases localnational and NGO experts are involved Formalinvolvement of other actors, no institutionalization of collab Slow in adaptation to new realities, old routines – decide Few experts Delays administrativeand discretion– negative Notes power, expertise and funds concentrated at the municipal the at concentrated funds and expertise power, oration, lack 307 CEU eTD Collection higher ladderEuropeanizationthe of (John This2000). process could be led byclimbing thus Regions) the of Committee the through (e.g. institutions EU on influence and with contacts closer and frequent more into transformed be will municipalities subject of further followingthe suggested tendencies dominate multi-level the governance and could be research. be could findings inthesis this the of basis the On actors. other over primacy and The strongernew realities.municipalities has to been However, adapted hardly theirsurrender authority role andof the influx of rules, knowledge and fundingpowers from EU. The administrative and legal set-up delegatedissues. Thesituation onthe inground Bulgarian municipalities environmental is changing rapidly because contentious the to solutions nationally governance multi-level of implementation to the of local The Europeanization rules andpractices has enhanced formation and environmentalbetween objectives and economic and social considerations. markedgovernance by hasappeared sphereof interconnected conflicts and competition newEUrulesthe on biodiversity domain another and 2000network protection Natura for issues disposal of hot waste are associations there like andNGOs(where in Sofia). landfill With regional consultants, companies, private governments, local by shared governance Waste managementhas become avery complicated andinterconnected field of multiple overlappingand interconnected horizontal andspheres (Hooghe Marks2001). fit inmore Stillgovernance that areas of Type are II-apolycentricthere model with andType Marks 2001). I(Hooghe as mostly LEG Bulgarian current the define results These position. this strengthened have 308 CEU eTD Collection procedural procedural rules of public participation and routine voting of municipalof council. following Municipalformal consultants, hired experts, legal and environmental to mainly confine that decision-making of means open) formally only (or bureaucratic hermetic of trend dissertation. of rule-making observed The procedures in casestudiesthe showcased the The lack collaborative of decision-making wasunderlined repeatedlythe throughout a local 03)). (Interviewauthority” T an extreme opinion –of “it onliketo (according goes chapters thishave itto is not better ground have their roleslocal level environmentalfor on The localthe governance. authorities actors and other although in a disproportionategovernance in Bulgaria.These weaknesses raise afinal suitability the question about of mannerimpair shortcomings are that 3) there 2009, environmental and Stoker (Chhotray as shown in case studies formalsystem dictatingcontrol terms of the relationships the between actors these no and actors of plurality decision-making, collective of rules about is governance If local8.10. Is levelthe right level for environmental governance? the new powers of the regional governorby other or authorities.possibly and associations landfill regional like actors new by broadened be will picture national NGOson shiftlevel. least towards multi-levelthe of powers Not governance non-compliance for state with EUlaw) they gaining. are There is already such a strong the against compliant of filing (e.g. powers formal and informal the of use and funding with increase could NGOs local and national of decision-making on impact and strength municipalitiesfrontrunner their associationsrepresentative NAMRB). The or (e.g. 309 CEU eTD Collection disposal. In sum, the case studies and other sources for the dissertation littleshowed dissertation the for sources and other studies case sum,the In disposal. and in ideal the resources very case they littlecould do with staffthe and money at their is waythey them the because that could access to EU funds. They are with limited own adhere and goals strategic and priorities national diligently follow but policy environmental from external consultantssupport (InterviewMunicipalities N02). with formulate and not do own municipalities frontrunners the from efforts and time of lot a took steps first the regional management waste scheme). They are missing in traditions and the cooperation a transfer station indefend about local they the to (e.g. withinterests each struggle other deadlines EU pressing under Even environment. fieldof in the interest public themselves define to failed have often Municipalities development. economic “wild” and crisis of times in issues social other and unemployment raising of problems the to exposed closely Bulgarian municipalities environmental astrong take not becausestance they do are too abandoned and discouraged. themselves like International College the Many Dobrich. active citizens and NGOs feel (Sustainabilityclosedin down are or fact Teteven) of and ignored Centre have distanced eitherThe local internationalare dyingNGO Ribaritsa),donors. (“Priroda”, are or out and outside theirpartners projects home municipality anddirectfunding on by EU or rule-makingusuallyThey are prefer partners. need rely as strategic or to regarded not on educational like International the Collegein in Dobrich) part capacitythe take with to themayorhandsof administration. andthe institutions (e.g. other Local NGOs or in the capacities and powers of concentration meaning centralism, local about finding exerciseauthorities same fullthe In veinand rules’ procedures. over content control is the 310 CEU eTD Collection instructions about the implementation of by-laws. of implementation the about instructions issues MoEW guidelines the by-laws).addition, and In ofMinistersCouncil (for the to or laws) (for Parliament the to them submitting before agencies and ministries environmental laws andby-laws first with and prepared there then are coordinated other The Enterprise). Protection Environmental National the and Environment OP (through funding and information rules, national of source and authority principle is the MoEW The level. EU and national regional, from sanctions and control guidance, transposition, fieldregulated of environmental and need the forprotection downstream rule highly the to due is this hand, one On rule-making. of field the in well as dominant is It municipalities. in Bulgarian matters in environmental prevails governance hierarchical The Hierarchies were examined.governance processes casestudiesthe 4types of andgovernanceThroughout their structures application in the Governance structures 8.11.1. Conclusions 8.11. peoplethe inaccording to power. departmentalism, limited capacity administrationof the andvary economic that interests administration, static management, centralized traditions, old of walls behind morethey govern environmentalNow areas with more money and more ruleshidden but evidence Bulgarianthe that municipality is ascene of model environmental governance. 311 CEU eTD Collection Networks governance citizens’ spacefor broader engagement. by manyinternational on donors fundedoccasions. projects underOPshave The left not civil involvementfuelled by nascent democratization of Bulgarian society and sponsored of lead law-makingthe the andcontrol and processes planning after aperiod of a stronger policyand recent the developments havemunicipal that shown administrations have taken determine of rules. andthe scope direction Hierarchy the means also bureaucracy more andprocess results from rule-making and rule application. Mayors and their teams the determines decision-making of hierarchy the administration municipal the Within and ordinancesstrategies their but implementation imposes new challenges. municipalities.the delegated to are competences they are more equipped Now with rules in national and local realm. of regulation more areas There are where legal The governance by haslaw 2000) resulted andPeters (Pierre in new legal and strategic and efficiency. trust communication with the municipal whichexperts atmosphere adds the of up to mutual decisionsthe for andguidelines RIEW. TheRIEW of are inexperts constant administrations municipal at respect established is there addition, In functions. control and The RIEW are particularly influential of expertise authority, because concentration of the 312 CEU eTD Collection good example good in this sense is theinitiative presentedin Dobrich case –the Green network municipality in spiritalso work agood of andcooperation mutual professional respect. A predominantly work youngThe people. environmental experts of RIEW and of the environmentalmunicipal project andEU teams enabled also by in factthe that unitsthese legal, main the among devotion and spirit team of atmosphere is There trainings. within an ordinanceor draftprogram BAMEE or to forums – annual meetings and how advice for seeking municipalities neighbouring of colleagues among – levels informal Amongmunicipal is there experts an active information many exchangeat and cooperation problems. landfilling solve to pressure practical also but legal political, under established associations landfill municipal regional of case dissertation in the elsewhere mentioned often the is municipalities among networking recent needof andcomplex the regionalsharedproblems. solutions One to typical case of the municipalities with working in experience their of because there is potential the although inLEG actors important as emerge not did municipalities case in associations regional The policy. environmental clear and coherent lacks still but Environment OP for projects NAMRB provides trainings andinformation managementon waste and preparing of The municipalities. of associations regional of them of most and NAMRB of members are (intransfer withTeteven Frutigen, in Dobrich with Schaffhausen).The municipalities also some casespartnerships and twinning have ledintensive to policy, fund and knowledge forms:municipalities, among among and and experts between experts associations. In have andfactor been asgovernanceexternalised structure leastnetworks inThe at three 313 CEU eTD Collection campaigns like cleaning-up andawareness-raising like topics narrow on or education and Dobrich). The localTeteven of casestudies NGOs focus on the (see schools municipality Day) for elementary or Earth the for (e.g. wholethe and population for high The local directinvolvement is by triggered cleaning-up campaigns authorities. organized again local by of the representation legal traditional the through mostly 2000) Peters and (Pierre involvement” state minimum with problems common their “solve Communities stability. institutional and financial without position weaker the territoryactions resulted in a ofstrongerNGOs where protection level national Bulgaria,of nationalthe Unlike parks rule-making. and incommunity practicalon impact no ban almost of GMOs at with and limited is very engagement civil the local of scope the MoEW, localthe at bodies advisory in participation environmentalprotests, lobbying, campaigns, with decision-making local sometimes influence that coalitions their and NGOs environmental national activistsstrong the exclude we If andCommunity organizations are in solutions in basedtested on similara context. meetingsvarious at forums underpin drafting with processes new ideas practicesand good among municipalitiesknowledgetransferthe and Theinformal experts. consultations and The impact rules on of networks and rule-making reveals as very productive in terms of and regional authorities and public. the local among cooperation and decision-making institutional for platform a – Dobrudzha of 314 CEU eTD Collection in the hands of the service providers pressured by the community but mostly practical the implementation, However, controlledfor example, managementof waste policy is also by influenceThe marketarrangementsdocuments. not do directly the rule-making. consultancyand services and assignments on projects for elaboration of strategic service delivery inmanagement concessions waste or services – directcontracts through the in pronounced mostly again is tendency This administration. municipal by services of involves The governance that gains economic in actors importance because of outsourcing Markets practicallywas closed down by municipality).the collaborativedecision-making in(except cases like Sustainability the of Teteven Centre in experience and capacity limited their and leaders NGO of skills management mentioned isAs already twofold closed reason –the the administrative– system and the position. official the to alternatives presenting in or processes rule-making in interest and economicThe general framework. public andlocal environmental NGO rarely show administrative legal, current the under peripheral is rule-making on impact community The Sustainability and“Priroda”). Centre NGO actors has been considerable some of for atime beforecapacity the EU accession the (e.g. in Teteven-although the decision-making local influence to society civil of efforts democratic traditions andstrong sustainabilityare not In general,there events. in the only usually by extreme problems environmental to alert and sensitive becomes public sustainable Club(Ecologic Dobrich),or (Tsaritchina tourism general The -Teteven). 315 CEU eTD Collection clearly the case of the nature protection where activists andclearly protection NGOshave nature the of been case the active in the is This visible. and vital more are traditions NGO and society civil the municipalities rural smaller In municipalities. rural the in better exemplified are governance strong of features some However, complex. more is municipalities (bigger) urban in picture of population and industryconcentration governance the and of governmentpowers, alsoregionalare presented regional authoritiesor – RIEW Because governor. of the The urban municipalities more produce rules –ordinances and strategies. Attheir territory proportionally even of a larger scale and impactiffinancial at looks one figures. are municipalities smaller in the projects on-going The OPs. from coming especially comparative number.The scale is so different not also concerning availableof funds, are experts environmental municipal their but Dobrich than smaller times 5 about are andLukovit Teteven expect. could one that big that isnot gap the Still ishigher. capital administrative units andtheirAlsoexpertise. level the of rule enforcement andof social urban/ruralthe divide. Thebigger municipality the to – thebigger funds, the also larger the the relates and municipalities small and big between is distinction of type One LEG. their and municipalities of scale the about conclusions drawing allow studies case The LEG8.11.2. andmunicipal scale activities. plan’s action and setting priority the on a certain although municipalextent to content administration closely controls decides or andstrategies plansusually are consultants and to they contracted could influencelike theirrules strategic of development The obligations. their fulfil to administration municipal 316 CEU eTD Collection questions onthe basisthem. presentedthis In to of regard open reports public monitoring, raise could RIEW the or council municipal the case best the In authorities. municipal the for matter internal remains implementation their and administration of actions and resources public mostly concern they form current their In plans. development municipal the especially involvement public bigger with drafted usually are rules strategic The warnings, persuasion and personal involvement of the mayor the or municipal experts. with is achieved enforcement The nature. preventive and informative their employ rather but measures sanctioning and coercive their on rely not do municipalities the affectand behaviorthe direct intended to whole of the population in municipalitythe but administration is efficient rules strategic these rulesto are in producingIn contrast them. samethe time.The rules areestablished peoplethe and municipal close the to legalthe rules have exemplifiedlegal that localism is a beneficiary and hindrancefactor at The rules’ perspective provides a good assessment tool for effectiveness of the LEG. First, Effectiveness andstrengthofrules8.11.3. inDobrich. NGOs the then successful Sustainability and inof Teteven “Priroda” have Centre Teteven been more resourceful and leadersthese could make a bigger difference.surprisingly, Not NGOslike the recognised andlikelybe responsive more people’s needs. to In to a smaller community local municipal, communityor NGO people. They the leaders closerare better are to last 15years.morethan The people dependand on there care nature.morethe The about 317 CEU eTD Collection governance challenges same in thecaseof for the In soil theseareasand reasons. not new air quality municipalities nowthe programs). For couldmeasure not uptothe of pressure EC30 bigthe under municipalities wererequired by prepared MoEW the to withinnot a coherentlocal policy)some and extentair to quality (recently in 2010-2011 typical a (otherwise local issue),climate some change are initiatives (there but and projects allconsidered local at not at level.are much weakeror Among them are soil protection local environmental end local are the On opposite governance.the rules which ontopics management andplans, waste the strategies thefullshows other potential of rulesthe in national and funds. EU management And whereaswater is regulated only with andEPP managementwater legal combinedbecause the are there powers withavailable funds – As evidences reveal from research strongest the the higherof are importance governancethe for – with strongly expressed scopeand impacts. The local equal weightrules have in not every environmental policy Some of area. them municipalities. smaller the in down slowed been has process rule-making the demands repetitive. incoherent Recently rulesor these are of pressure bigunder the projects’ ministrythe aplanshow to strategy funding to or other rush the becauseor of agency reflect policythe and budget administration.agenda of the in However, many cases activities priorities, Their drafting. of timing of in terms least at rules legal over priority importantfor environmental are documents The strategies investments and usually have municipal building is needed. assessmentand discussion impactsof the and of overall effects the outside of programs the themes are waste managementthemes arewaste and 318 CEU eTD Collection pose additional pose challenges. Conversely, biodiversity the policy byis governed better aspects regional the and municipalities of capacity financial and institutional the although managementis legal nothere better and practical them govern way than localthe to way in general. processes In some areas like andgovernance andprocesses wastewater waste EU environmentalnew rulesdemocracy led and to capacity deficits in rule-making the from stemming municipalities of workload and obligations the Europeanization and environmental Neverthelessgovernance. during Bulgaria’s firstyears of EU membership The municipal level has potential of becoming the vibrantand effective policy arena for Local 8.11.4. environmental governance –thewayahead countries like Norway and Finland (Grönholm 2010, 242;Falleth and Novik 2009). advanced most the for even phenomenon common a rather but issue country’s Southern a administration,business and population. However, this is a nota typical national feature or national endsof andthe economic NGOs) developmentand employment backed by local objectivesby (safeguarded nationalprotection the and regional administrations and In realityis Teteven). there aninherent conflict between EUand national biodiversity includeitin andin EPP some casesin general the environmental ordinance (e.g. protection municipalities All protection. biodiversity of theme controversial the is category third A could havefor energy aprogram efficiency (Dobrich urban). perceive (in EPP of the itall as apart not do caseminicipalities)three andin bestcase the local at level.climate Asto change even highso onEUandnational agenda municipalities directive lack the anEU of and of nationalprotection explainsstrategies thelittle attention 319 CEU eTD Collection part of EU space, are promising signs for this journey. new funds, EU and political the and citizens awareness of be broader prospectivethe to experiencedthe local young experts, leaders within administration,and the outside new the the Still, expect. to little is there level, local above mechanisms market and network local environmental functioningproper without of allgovernance, though hierarchical, improve the effectiveness,is aheadto There long road inclusiveness and transparency of monitoring thereafter). and closing-up with years 20 than more last could landfill a of cycle life the (e.g. Theirdecisions nowaffect quality the of environmentand life of people for longer periods and new rules theEUcontext requiringbecauseof think them andplanto was ahead. municipalitiesbeyond further look yearly the haveto learnt and election cycles mostly loadedagainst long the In environmental run”198). (1997, governance Bulgarian local claims- governance “the political that of communitiesprocesses be tend to and states on influential scholars most of one - Rosenau thesis the of beginning in the mentioned As soil protection. like levels these across profile low very a with even are or actors EU and national local, of cooperation of practice institutional in the or rules environmental local in well expressed andmanagementmanagement coastal yet forest sharedare not of resources, that extremes lay two these areas like climate and change mitigation, adaptation water Between NGOs. national of participation active with authorities regional and national 320 CEU eTD Collection governance. The hierarchiesgovernance. havedefines emerged that asdominantgovernance structure environmental for level suitable most the not is level local change) climate biodiversity, their with importancecapacitylocal the of andactors interests. In some cases (e.g. largeenvironmental investmentfunding.hand, localthe On theother circumstances show andforce symbol newof governancearrangements externalized in rules, new staff and adriving hasbeen Europeanization The VIII. in Chapter discussed been have 3) (Question municipalities Bulgarian in rules environmental local on accounts empirical the from andtendencies local of The main structures environmental factors, governance as emerged society. civil weak and system rule-making closed “centralism”, administrative leadership, traditionalism, capacity, disproportional and climateprotection change The rule-making areas. and other is process marked by soil in biodiversity, rules missing or scarce to management waste in system rule developed informal to andeffectivenesswhen rules.The scope appropriate of rules varies from fully local rules have been definedmain by two –legal groups and strategic - with reference mayorand influential hasemergedas astrongest in rule-makingactor and the LEG. The the by led administration municipal local The VIII. Chapter in partly and VII and VI V, in Chapters studies case three of subject the been has 2) (Question isgoverned it how and is governed what is governing, who of in terms in Bulgaria governance environmental environmental fieldhas been local How provided. environmental ruleslocal represent been discussed where inandtheir in adetailed IV Chapter powers actors picturethe of has 1) (Question framework institutional and by legal isdefined governance environmental Until thesis the now has first answeredthe research three How questions. Bulgarian local Bulgarian 321 CEU eTD Collection related objectives, measures and funding arepoorly expressed. biodiversity and strategicthe soil rules now For deal protection. with these issues but the New local rules andsystem green ordinances. environmentalframeworkfor inregulated exceptionsrules,these are managementwaste be separately regulated need to and not in detail. greater Underthe presentlegal do that rules all codifies that ordinance an adopt could municipalities rules environmental Codification of rules 8.12. Policyrecommendations They findingsaboveare basedon presented and conclusions. concludingimprove of to themelocal the status suggested are environmental governance. rules in Bulgaria is in reflected next the upon section. These recommendations as a institutional arrangementsrule-making of and for effective procedures local environmental policy about researchquestion recommendationsThe fourth improvement for of legal and community. havebeen established environmental leaders andtraditions withvalue great for the municipalities in rural Nevertheless, rules. of capacity full the deploy to - capital social and budget administration, larger with – position better in are municipalities urban larger The processes. governance shape to potential with in manyinstances found been have networks and markets communities, Still governance. multi-level of mode current the also - New environmental rules could be developed at local level – e.g. on – In terms of In terms of – economy of governance scale and of coherence 322 CEU eTD Collection revenues from sanctions imposed for breaching local rules and the from transfers from with the established be could fund environmental special a or protection environmental on line budget special a have should budget municipal The projects. environmental municipal Kardzhali).The funds could be managed locally,finance by controlled RIEW,to the compensate damages atlocal local to budgets level to collected) case of the (e.g. are municipalities the polluting operators from fines the now where MoEW (from budget Local budget for environmental protection independententity. other or council public a for task a be could this municipalities bigger in addition, In objectivesthe andto measures and plans strategies of the attached isthis. do way one to indicators on based reports regular of Publishing administration. municipal of work achieve rules need The strategic bemonitoredto transparency and accountability of the with rules of all citizens and companies. informalenforcement units asin compliance rules.Stronger lead could Haskovo better to bypassschemesneglect or enforcementthe to andpractices – in rulingpractice with financialbetter leadto rulecouldthe prevent “unmaking” It results. –creating local enforcement; increase efficiency the administrationof the work of the and probably will communityaccessiblethe that willcould exercise so It control. ensure transparency of rule publicly be could sanctions and fines on information All introduced. be should rules legal Enforcement rules ofthe – A system– of enforcementtrackingthe down of environmental – Targeted transfers from transfersfrom nationalthe Targeted – 323 CEU eTD Collection MoEW organizesMoEW trainings and discussions of legal the drafts through NAMRB – a closer and by appointing of an withexpert environmental education and background. Since development sustainable and/or protection environmental on commission standing special National associations establishing, when possible, of advisory and expert positionsthe council.to commissionseparate environment on sustainable on and/or development; by or municipal councils could be expressed by giving ithigher importance and appointing a Stronger municipal councils - 2010, 9). “the optimal” about size a local of citizensgovernmentof 30,000 around (Swianiewicz are by brought Swianiewiczwhich A Polish 3). (2010, for study a conclusioncited therereached to arguments consolidation, territorial into transformed be could consolidation functional This mayors. the to pools expert as serve to formed be could municipalities joint governancestaffshortages, becauseof environmental and budget teams with other Consolidation educational institutions, NGOs kindergarten and - 2414 applications forl.25 mil. BGN. Environmental ProtectionEnterprise’s campaign 2011 ForCleaner Environment –formunicipalities, 58 NGOs like actors local for funding additional for need a is There municipality. fees national of andthe fines to related territory the budget on imposed operators on Clearly expressed by the enormous interest inavery limited national funding by the National – In case that small municipality could not cope with environmental with cope not could municipality small that case In – - The role of NAMRB could be furthered by establishing of a of by establishing be furthered could NAMRB of role The - The strengthening of environmental agenda at the at agenda environmental of strengthening The 58 . 324 CEU eTD Collection decisions. bebalanced could powers these administrative with local the over control andcourt pollutionof would be source the more effective. to closestauthorities Possible misuse of heavy industries. caseof The Kardzhali clearly from level justifiessanctions imposed that local by localat pollution the prevent and control to powers more with legislations More legal powers for projects under OPs. application in joint including members, its to expertise and advice offering and problems environmental regional of discussion for platform be could municipalities of associations this experience than management topics waste other could be existing added.The regional of basis the On landfills. regional the been have environment of field the in associations Regional municipal associations systemsand should ECONET DEPOINFO actively. be upgradedandpromoted developed shouldand courses projects the underEU be managed The online better. national localand with authorities, NAMRB and environmental trainingNGOs. The centre the with cooperation of by forms new strengthened be should BAMEE of role The point for MoEW the should be sought. Environmental between theNAMRB Directorate andPolicies the cooperation as a focal - The municipalities should be granted by the environmental by the granted be should municipalities The - – Until now the main subject of activity of the regional the of activity of subject main the now Until – 325 CEU eTD Collection measures shouldaim encouragement of at inlocal part take rule-makingNGOs to and Empowering oflocal NGO NGOs andfor the authorities couldquota is notproceed formallythere withoutCouncil) the involvement Expert of NGOs. Environmental Supreme the (like ministers the to bodies consultative inthe when level national at case the now is This processes. inclusive more participation ofexisting andemerging NGOs andactive citizens the thiswith model could lead to authorities local of practices administrative formal into put If proceed. municipal authorities contentof the rules, and of rule-making -when process and how to discretion the at leave not and authorities municipal of expectations and rights duties, of level the raise could involvement civil of institutionalization The requirements. EU and national with comply to only even it support would they participation rules because they bring additional funds,in so casesthe if isthere requirementfor public management environmentalof and rules.resources local The leaders have embraced EU in the involvement real with actors various fore the to bring could that process) earliestare financialpossibleThere stage. transparent meansand other (cooperation, standinggroups, committees, discussion of new rules in theprocess of drafting atthe requirements for participating of local in actors rule-makingthe and other working –e.g. minimum define that administration the for rules formal for need a is There involvement. communitystronger to andand contribute NGO capacity inattract some casesto administrative and will political of lack clear a also is there level local at but state the decision-making,which could communistthe be to attributed legacy and the strength of Collaborative decision-making – A national and local strategies in their legal and financial and legal their in strategies local and national A – – The civil society is marginal to the core of the of core the to marginal is society civil The – 326 CEU eTD Collection regional governance of shared natural resources in protected areascould beregional in more shared efficient.of governance natural resources protected exclusively management).urban waste local Biodiversity (e.g. is such an area where problems of regional the environmentalaspects of even inprotection, issuesare that some resolve might cooperation and communication supramunicipal in governor regional andfinance control An regional projects. active and legally involvementgrounded of andcoordination facilitation ofconflicts themunicipalities between real to to power The role of regional andregional couldMoEW begovernor. enhancedgovernor from The delegation of more competences should be safeguarded– RIEW, by control state the municipalities. for powers more on and protection environmental for budget local bigger for recommendation the on discussed as municipalities for powers more mean could levels andlocal division The authorities” (EC2008). and sharing governance across of powers ministries,between between variousthe as stakeholders well as between central, regional co-ordination improving in taken steps initial the on “build reads: Bulgaria in funds ParliamentCommission European the Counciland the the management to on EU- of the New governance mix partners. possible be could NGOs protection health and social pensioners, of clubs clubs, Sport authorities. municipal and NGOs environmental with together activities environmental NGOs withoutside.” (Interview profiles T03). other could in be attracted undertaking communities environment the preserve activelymore than people introduced from only by proxy of happen external not actors – e.g. national could and international protection NGOs. “Local people andenvironmental The general. in decision-making environmental – One of the recommendations in the report of the European 327 CEU eTD Collection faster andinway. a more competent national and regional environmental process the runs authorities could bepursuedsothat legal of rules In preparation andstrategic theformal engagement of and initiatives from 328 CEU eTD Collection Cheltenham, Elgar. UK:Eduard Baldwin. R.1995. European UnionandBritain Bache2008. I. level interaction. multi- of dynamics the and institutions actors, local level: urban the at Europeanization 8 Bache2003. I. Environmental Policy in Central andEasternEurope Andonova L.2004. Reference list Barnes and 1999. P.M. I.G. Poland.from Banas P.2008. th . Biannual. Conference,Nashville, Cited inMarch,2003. Marshall A. 2005. Budapest: CEU, PhD Thesis. Europeanization: a governance Europeanization: a perspective Local authorities in implementationoftheenvironmental policy: evidence Journal of European PublicJournal ofPolicy Europeanization and Multilevel Governance.Europeanization andMultilevel Cohesion Policy in Rules andGovernmentRules Transnational Politics of Environment. European TransnationalUnion Politicsof and . Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers. Littlefield and Rowman Lanham: . Environmental policy in theEuropeanUnion . Oxford: Clarendon. Oxford: Press. 12(4): 668-686. 12(4): . Cambridge Mass.: MIT Press. Cambridge MIT . Mass.: . Paper presented to the EUSA the to presented Paper . 329 . CEU eTD Collection Baden-Baden: Nomos. Baden-Baden: Bevirand M. R. Rhodes 2003. governance. B. andUsui Local M. 2002. Barrett Agenda 21 in Japan: transforming local environmental Europe. In Europe. Boviard T. 284. CommissionEuropean Parliament. and European the CompetingBouwen P.2007. for Consultation: Civil Society and Conflict between the s/lands/uncdf_lands.pdf [consulted on 26 April 2007]. http://www.uncdf.org/english/local_development/documents_and_reports/thematic_paper Fund ULR: (UNCDF). natural resourcesdecentralisation of Bonfiglioli A. 2004. Publishers. Cohesion Policy in EuropeanUnionandBritain CitedRoutledge. in Bache2008. I. et al Developing LocalGovernanceNetworks in Europe Local Environment .2002. Emerging .2002. practices inManagement Local Network at Level in Lands of the poor:localenvironmental governance Lands of and the 7(1): 49-67. 7(1): Interpreting Britishgovernance . New York: United Nations Capital Development Capital Nations United York: New . Europeanization andMultilevel Governance. . Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield and Rowman Lanham: . West European Politics . London . London and NewYork: . ed. Boviard T. 30(2): 265- 30(2): et al. 330 CEU eTD Collection Approach Chhotray G.2009. V. and Stoker al,et Abingdon, 129-148. Oxon:Routledge. Urban Governance andDemocracy. Leadership andCommunityInvolvement In Union. European the of Governance Multi-level in the Cities 2005. L. Carmichael in Germany and UK. the Bulkeley andH. KernLocal K.2006. Government and Governingthe of Climate Change and ‘Urban’ the Politics of Climate Change. Governance Multilevel Cities: Sustainable Rethinking 2005. M. Betsill and H. Bulkeley and Management. 991–1009. 53(8): Planning Environmental of Journal waste. of governance the from learning engagement: Bull J.andEvans J.2010.TheimportancePetts R., of context for effective public KluwerDordrecht: Academic Publishers. discourses in aEuropeanizingsociety In Europe. Southern BriassoulisSustainable 2001. H. development informal– the formalor way? The case of . New York: Palgrave Macmillan. York: . New Environmental politicsinSouthern Europe: actors, institutions, and Urban Studies Governance Theory andPractice. ACross-disciplinary . 43(12): 2237–2259. . 43(12): . ed. Klaus. ed. Ederand Maria Kousis Environmental Politics . 14(1): 42-63. . 14(1): et al. . ed. Haus . ed. , 73-99. 331 CEU eTD Collection Union: an introduction. In ChristiansenFollesdal T., A.and Informal Piattoni S.2003. governance in European Implement Environmentalthe Acquis.220210/2006/442710/MAR/E3. Project to Authorities Environmental Regional and Local of Capacity the Strengthening RevisionProposals for 2008. ______. of Existing Administrative Regulations. 220210/2006/442710/MAR/E3. Project Acquis. Environmental the Implement to Authorities Environmental Regional COWI Committee Regions. of the DalyGovernance and socialM. 2003. policy. Traditions Creswell J. W. 1998. T. and Piattoni S., 1-21. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar. Committee of Regionsthe (CoR)2009. Roles of Roles of Organizations.Nonprofit for Local Democratic Governance: TheGovernance Prospects The 2001. ClarkeS.E. et al. . Thousand Oaks. California: Sage Publications. 2007. Institutional Review. Strengthening the Capacity of Local and Local of Capacity the Strengthening Review. Institutional 2007. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design.Qualitative Inquiryand Choosing Among Five Informal Governance Informal in theEuropeanUnion Policy Studies Review Policy Studies White Paper onMultilevel Governance Journal of Social PolicyJournal of . 18(4):129-145. . 32(1): 113–128. . 32(1): . ed. Christainsen. . Brussels: . 332 CEU eTD Collection Paper. Brussels: European Commission. European Brussels: Paper. EC, Commission of Communities. European the governance. 2001.European A White Initiative, Society Open Institute. Local Kandeva Budapest: Governmented. 141-179. E. and Public Service Reform DrumevaLocal 2000. Government E. in Bulgaria. In 137-148. 17(1): Rules RemainNew European Do Empty Shells? in EU the of Dimitrova Aftermaththe The NewMember States A.2010. of Enlargement: Dey I.1999. Netherlands. Journal of PublicEuropean Policy. 447-467. 9(3): in the Governement Local on Union European the of Impact The 2002. R. Rooij De Palgrave Macmillan. NewYork: E.L. Rose world. In Denters B. and Rose E.L. 2005. Local governance in GeorgiaandPolandArmenia, Bulgaria, the third millennium: The viciouscircle: weak stateinstitutions,unremedied abuseand a distrust: reports from braveIn Bulgaria. new government: in local abuses for remedies Administrative 2005. S. Delcheva Comparing localgovernance. Trendsanddevelopments. Grounding Grounded Theory . ed. Edwin Rekosh, 57-99. Budapest: OSI.. . London: Academic Press. Journal of European Public Policy Journal of Stabilization of Local GovernmentsStabilization of ed. Denters B. and B. Denters ed. 333 . CEU eTD Collection York: Springer-Verlag Inc. York: NewYork Tools toaidenvironmental decision making English M.R., Dale V. H.,Riper-Geibig V. C.,and Ramsey. W.H. 1999. Introduction In K.G.2002. Esterberg local at level, Europeaid/123444/D/SER/BG. acquis environmental the of inimplementation capacity administrative the of development administrativemanagement systems for environmentFurther project under the municipal existing the for and projects investment environmental the of application administrativeon Report 2009. EPTISA. capacity local at level for preparation and stress? Eckerberg K.andJoasM.2004 [consulted on 28 May 2009]. URL: .pdf http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/secretariat_general/cvm/docs/bulgaria_report_funds_20080723_en Retrieved on May 4, 2010, from ParliamentEuropean and Council: the On managementthe the of EU funds in to Bulgaria. Commission the to Report 2008. Communities. European the of Commission EC, Local Environment http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/com/2001/com2001_0428en01.pdf Qualitative Methods in Social Research Methodsin Social Qualitative . 9(5): 405–412. . 9(5): . Multi-level Environmental Governance: a concept under concept a Governance: Environmental Multi-level . ed.Dale. V.H. and English M.R., 1-31. New . Boston: McGrow-Hill. Boston: . 334 CEU eTD Collection Giddens A. 1984. Space, KnowledgeM. 1984. FoucaultIn and Power. Construction? or Enhancement Decision-Making: Fleurke F.andWillemseEffects R.2007. of European the Union on Sub-National domestic the filters Europe: of Europeanization. in Southern governance Environmetnal 2010. C. Koutalakis and N. Font A.M., Fernandez decetralizationin as astrategy environmental policy. FallethLocal governmentand2009. Hovik.S. and E.I. nature conservation in Norway: process. planning action biodiversity local the from Observations governance? environmental local about is local What 2004. J. Evans management of change. management of Goss S. 2001. policy: utility the of a regime approach. inenvironmental local regulation and Governance 2000. A.E.G. Jonas and D. Gibbs Theory andPractice.Cross-disciplinary A Approach Cited Pantheon New York: inBooks. P. Chhotray G.2009. V. and Stoker Making localgovernance work: networks, relationships, andthe The Constitution of Society The Constitution of New York: Palgrave. Geoforum . Cambridge: Policy Press Policy Cambridge: . Area Environmental Politics. 31:299-313. European Integration . 36(3): 270-279. . 36(3): Local Environment . New York: Palgrave Macmillan York: . New The FoucaultReader. . 29(1): 69-88. . 29(1): . 14(3): 221-231. . 14(3): 19(4): 557-577. 19(4): ed. Rabinow. ed. Governance 335 CEU eTD Collection John P. 2001. 894. John P. 2000. Europeanization of Sub-national Governance. Sub-national of Europeanization 2000. P. John Open Society Institute. Initiative, Reform Service Public and Government Local Budapest: 171-217. Swianiewicz, local governments inCentralthe sizeof fragmentation: and Eastern Europe effective? Size andfunctioning of local governments in Bulgaria. In Ivanov S., TchavdarovaGovernance. G., Savov UnravelingE.2003. ______. butHow? Central Types the State, of Multi-level and Stanev H. 2002. Does2007]. larger mean [consultedOnline 10AprilURL: http://eiop.or.at/eiop/texte/2001-011.htm 5(11). Papers, more andTypesL. Marks,G.2001. of multi-levelHooghe, governance,Integration European involvement. public of illusion the Finland: in parks national the Governing 2009. S. Grönholm American PoliticalScienceJournal Local Government Local governance inWestern Europe 14(3): 233-243. 14(3): 97(2): 233-243. 97(2): . London: Sage Publications. Sage London: . Urban Studies Consolidation or 37(5-6): 877- 37(5-6): ed. Pawel ed. 336 CEU eTD Collection Press. Domestic Change. In Administrations. National of Persistence and Change policy. environmental EU to Adjusting 2001. A. Lenschow and Knill C. Change andPersistence Knill C. 2001. KnightJ. 1992. Europeanizing society Southern Europe:actors,Environmental politicsin institutions,anddiscourses in a institutions In of collective Europe. Southern A theoretical perspective action. on policy-making,2001. EU K.Kousis and M.Eder local action, and the emergence of Co. governments Europe inEastern and Russia. In in Bulgaria. government local of analysis An 2000. M. Kimura al Environmental Governance? -NationalExperiences and ProspectsEnvironmental in Policy Environmental in Revolution a or Evolution an A.,WurzelJordan R.K.W. andA.R. Zito 2003.New Environmental Policy Instruments: . 213-214 London:Frank. 213-214 Gass. The EuropeanizationNational Administrations:The of Patterns Institutional of Institutions andsocial conflict ed. Cowles M. G. . ed. Eder K. e . New York: Cambridge University Press. t al ., 3-21. Dordrecht: KluwerDordrecht: 3-21. Academic., Publishers. et al Transforming Europe:Europeanizationand ., 116-136. Ithaca. N.Y.CornellIthaca. 116-136. ., University ed. Ieda O. 333-357. Hiroshima: ed.IedaO.333-357. Keisuisha . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. University Cambridge Cambridge: . ed.Andrew Jordan New Instruments of The emerginglocal 337 et CEU eTD Collection March March J. and Olsen J. 1989. the rules-in-use.the Local 2006. political G. L. and Stoker Pratchett participation:Lowndes V., Theimpactof 309. institutions change (and stay same)the in local governance. Lowndes V.2005Something old, something new, something. How . borrowed Cheltenham: LEGar. Edward development. In Lafferty M.W. 2004. Introduction: form and function in governance for sustainable Press. variables. In changesStructural Krasner and1983. regime S. consequences: regimes as intervening (Consulted on 14December 2010). http://eiop.or.at/eiop/texte/2003-001a.htm a comprehensive Online Integration Available7 (1), evaluation. European Papers, from: Modes of regulation2003. ______. in governancethe of European the Union: towards et al . 2000. International regimes International Public Administration Governance forsustainabledevelopment The Dynamics of Rules. The Dynamicsof Rediscovering Institutions . ed. Krasner S. 1-21. Ithaca NY: Cornell University . 84(3): 539–556. . 84(3): Stanford: Stanford University Press. University Stanford Stanford: . New York: Free Press. . ed. Lafferty M.W., 1-31. Policy Studies . 26(3/4): 291- . 26(3/4): 338 CEU eTD Collection Moore S.F.1978. Moore www.moew.government.bg). at MoEW. National Environmental 2009. (available2009-2018. Strategy online in Bulgarian www.moew.government.bg). at Bulgarian in online (available Programmes Protection Environmental Municipal the of Content and Structure for Guidelines MoEW. Landscape andUrban Planning Politics 2002. andscale:J. some implicationsMeadowcroft for environmental governance. andKegan Paul,Henley Cited inand Boston. G. 2009. Chhotray V. and Stoker in Actors Urban Governance. Minneryand and Market Stars theirCommunityJ. 2007. State, Cast: Supporting as http://teteven.bg/index.php?mod=category&id=12. inBulgarian municipality Teteven the of site web Municipal DevelopmentPlan available Teteven (MDPTeteven), 2007-2013 official atthe Mason J. 2002. interaction. multi-level of dynamics Marshall A. 2005. Europeanization at the urban level: local actors, institutions and the Qualitative researching Qualitative Law as Process: AnthropologicalApproach. An Urban Policy andResearch 61: 169–179. Journal of European PublicJournal of Policy . London: Sage Publications. Sage London: . . 25(3): 325–345. . 25(3): London:Routledge 12(4): 668-686. 12(4): 339 - CEU eTD Collection self-government Page E.1991. Economics. Ecological andInstitutions environmentalPaavola J.2006. governance: A reconceptualization. Boulder, CO:Westview Press: 35-71. and DevelopmentIn Framework. Analysis Institutional the of assessment An Choice: Rational Institutional 2007. E. Ostrom action Ostrom E.1991. Public Policy-Making: Actors, Institutions and Learning. In ParaskevopoulosEU Enlargement C. J.2006. and Multi-Level Governance in European of of rules-in-use,the 546. Local politicalG.. participation:L. andStoker The impactCited inPratchett V., Lowndes 1986. An Ostrom E. Agenda for Study the of Institutions, Macmillan. Practice.Governance Theoryand ACross-disciplinary Approach . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. University Cambridge Cambridge: Localism andcentralism bases inEurope:thepoliticalandlegal of local . Oxford: Oxford University Press. Governingcommons:the evolution the ofinstitutions collectivefor 1-11. Public Administration Theories of the Policy Theories Processof . 84(3): 539–556. 2006. 539–556. . 84(3): Adapting to EU Multi-Level Adapting toEU Public Choice , ed. Paul A. Sabatier. . New York: Palgrave , 48(1): 3–25. , 48(1): 340 CEU eTD Collection University Press. Without Government ‘Governance, andChange1992. Order J. N. Rosenau. in World Politics’, in Cowles M. G. Introduction. In Europeanization andRisseJ. 2001. Cowles Domesticand G.C. T., Caporaso Change: Czech Republic. Riishoj,Europeanization2007. andS. Euroscepticism: Experiences from Poland and reflectivity andaccountability Rhodes R.A.W. 1997. Bulgaria. Aid/120600/D/SV/BG. Europe Legislation, Environmental of Implementation for Level Local at Capacity Administrative Ramboll Press. Martins Pierre B.G.2000. J.and Peters Paraskevopoulos, Getimis and Rees. Aldershot, 3-24. England: Ashgate. Governance. RegionalandEnvironmentalPolicies inCohesion andCEECountries et al . 2007. Administrative. 2007. Capacity under project the StrengtheningReport of et al Nationalities Papers Transforming Europe: Europeanization and DomesticTransforming Europe: Change. ., 116-136. Ithaca. N.Y. Cornell University Press. . ed. J. Rosenau and. ed. E.-O.Czempiel:Cambridge: 1–29. Cambridge Understanding governance:policynetworks, governance, . Buckingham: Open University Press. Governance, Politics and theState. 35(3): 503-535. 35(3): New York: St. Governance . ed. ed. 341 CEU eTD Collection Silverman D. 2000. Publications. W.R. 2001 Scott Schimmelfennig F. and Sedelmeier U., 1-28. Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press. Deficit. Diagnostic a Explaining From A.“New”“Old” M.and2010. Governance inJordan Twena A., to the EU: Schout Policy SampfordC. 2002.Environmental governance for biodiversity. Turbulent World Rosenau J.N.1997. Publications. In Europe. Eastern ConceptualizingIntroduction: 2005. ______. Europeanization the of Central and Public Policy candidatethe countries of Central to transfer Europe. and Eastern rule EU conditionality: by Governance 2004. U. Sedelmeier and F. Schimmelfennig . 5:79–90. 11(4): 661-679. 11(4): . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. University Cambridge Cambridge: . . Institutions andOrganizations. Institutions Doing QualitativeResearch: Apracticalhandbook Along theDomestic-Foreign Frontier. ExploringGovernance ina The Europeanization of CentralThe Europeanizationof andEasternEurope West European Politics . Thousand Oaks, California: Sage 33(1): 154-170. 33(1): Environmental Science& Journal of European Journal of . London: Sage . ed. 342 CEU eTD Collection Abingdon, Oxon:Routledge. Democracy. LeadershipandCommunityand Involvement Cities______. 2005. in transition. From statism democracy. to In Open Society Institute. Swianiewicz, Local GovernmentandBudapest: Public 5-29. Service Reform Initiative, local governments inCentralthe sizeof fragmentation: and Eastern Europe socialof servicesinternational – and theoretical framework.context In indelivery efficiency and democracy local government, local of Size 2002. P. Swianiewicz IDEA. International representation, conflict managementandgovernance representation, conflict Democracy Handbook onparticipation,at locallevel. TheinternationalIDEA Local Governance andDemocracy2001. G. in the twenty-firstStoker century. In Society in Bulgaria and the USA. A comparative analysis. Innovation 20(1): 35-52. and andtheDevelopment Warner NGOS S. R.L.2007. Henderson of CivilB., S. Steel Resources Environmental Governance: A Framework andCase Study. Smileyand PublicLoëb R. 2010. Appropriate Kreutzwisera R. S., Involvement in Local (23):1043–1059. . ed. Sisk T.D. . ed. Haus et al,Haus et. ed. 102-129. Society andNatural Urban Governance et al. Consolidation or Stockholm: ed. Pawel ed. 343 CEU eTD Collection Sage Publications. Politics of Environmental Justice. Watson M.andBulkeley Just Waste? Municipal H. 2005. WasteManagement and the Yin. K.R.2003. Slovakia. in Action in Environmental government Local of Role The 2000. D. Svihlova and E. Wilson Environmental Outcomes. Beneficial Deliver to Attempts Government Local Australian 2006. S. River Wild Local Governmentand Public Service Reform Initiative, Society Open Institute. Territorial consolidationreforms in Europe. Territorial 2010. ______. Fragmentation as aProblem,Consolidation as a Solution? In Local Environment Case Study Research.DesignandMethods Local Environment . 5(3): 255-269. . 5(3): Local Environment . 11(6): 719–732. . 11(6): ed. Pawel ed. Swianiewicz, Budapest: 1-23. . 10(4): 411–426. . 10(4): . Thousand Oaks. California: Oaks. Thousand . 344