English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

E-petitioning related to environmental matters is a rather new participatory behavior in the Romanian society and it seems to attract more and more the attention of a larger public (not just a minority of educated eco-citizens or experts in related fields). Lately, in Romania there were a few major e-petitioning campaigns trying to stop large and popular economic investments projects that were detrimental to the environment (the most visible are petitions fighting the building of microdams on mountain rivers, regional landfills, mining projects). Also, those campaigns led to media coverage, brought on a public debate through some media channels, revealed serious problems with how the state authorizes such projects, and even managed to get the attention of the European Commission. None of these would have been possible without the very source of large public mobilization on an environmental matter, e-participation and e-petitions. Thus, the paper investigates e-petitions in the environmental field in order to understand their impact on environmental problems, and also, most importantly, if these e-petitions manage to influence environmental policy and governance. For decades, through the entire process of European integration, Romania has struggled with meeting the environmental standards required by the EU. Data is lacking or unreliable, there is a culture of lack of transparency related to environmental matters both in the public and in the private sector, and Romania needs to seriously address this problem. The paper provides an investigation of ‘if’ and ‘how’ e-petitioning could be a tool to move state and society towards effective environmental governance in the Romanian context. 1. Public participation and its role in environmental governance The paper places the subject of e-petitions in the wider context of environmental policy making and governance, in order to understand the role they play in facilitating public involvement and good governance. Some insights into the theoretical aspects of participation and governance and a minimal diagnosis of the level of participation and governance manifestations in Romania are necessary in order to provide context for environmental e-petitioning and understanding why this movement is so important for the Romanian context. Given the scope of this paper, the most relevant theoretical issues in relation to the research subject are selected. With regard to public participation the theoretical approaches are numerous and rich in significance when applied to environmental governance. A minimal definition of participation includes any type of involvement of non-state actors, as members of the public or as organized stakeholders, in any stage of governmental policy making including implementation [9]. The general purpose of participation is to contribute to the quality and implementation of decisions as well as their legitimacy. 1 Public Administration and Management Department, Faculty of Political, Administrative and Communication Sciences, Babes-Bolyai University, Gen. Traian Mosoiu, 71, 400132, Cluj-Napoca, Romania, raluca.suciu@fspac.ro 562 CEE e|Dem and e|Gov Days 2017 Research into the rationales for public participation resulted in recent studies proposing comprehensive and easily applicable models; thus, Wesselink et al. (2011) discuss three major rationales for participation: instrumental – targeting increased legitimacy of policy decisions and improved results; substantive – increasing information input, gives more substance to proposals, makes decisions that address problems in as much depth as possible, improving the quality of decisions; and normative – linked to democratic ideals and values, including all affected parties into policy decisions for fostering maximum public involvement. Different from this theoretical categorization, other approaches try to identify all the possible benefits and justifications for public participation. One such rationale that applies in particular to our discussion is resolution of political and societal conflicts by means of alternative mechanisms and empowerment of marginalized groups which have been left out of environmental governance. Although the literature in this field is large and comprehensive, the discussion will be limited to elements applicable to the situation of environmental governance in Romania. Rather the legalistic rationale applies to the Romanian public administration, central government and central agencies included. This rationale, proposed by Wesselink et al. (2011), applies for participation organized only to meet formal requirements. Compliance with rules is necessary to get things done, but this process is likely to be only a formality without any uptake of results [9]. There is relevant literature analyzing the rationales and discourses used by public authorities in participatory processes [7], but there are fewer attempts at theorizing the participants’ discourses on participation, mostly based on a case-study approach. Recently, the environmental governance literature addresses the need for a transformative change needed in order to address the most important global environmental problems (climate change, ecosystem sustainability). There seems to be a consensus that the status-quo is not working for environmental protection. Following from this, methods and models to improve environmental governance are addressed in most studies: transformative changes that are invoked in the literature need large involvement and participation – thus the relevance of public participation and the extensive interest in the best ways to consolidate it. Basically, studies on participation try to address ways ‘to create rapid mobilization that will educate the public about environmental issues and raise social consciousness with regard to the need for policy reform that will support more radical approaches to environmental problems’ [6]. According to Jacoby (2012), in this new paradigm, the role of the public is fundamentally changed, from stakeholder of an environmental resource (term which implies opposition, polarization, protecting one’s stake) to partner in social and political change efforts needed to address environmental issues. This shift in perspective is characteristic to recent literature development in public participation in environmental policy and governance [6]. Another relevant argument is that there is a perfect fit between these recent developments in environmental governance and the new e-communication tools that are so ubiquitous in this age. Disappointment with traditional public authorities led public participation, such as public hearings or formal public consultations, originates in the lack of empowerment through such processes, cynicism with regard to the ability to influence decisions, opposition, polarization (jobs versus the environment), and even the need for litigation from communities. CEE e|Dem and e|Gov Days 2017 563 All these failures of traditional paths for public involvement have given rise to new bottom-up participatory trends in environmental decision-making. Informal community-based evidence with regard to environmental problems and other manifestations of informal environmental leadership can allow communities to create change and empower citizens, if they succeed in finding an effective way into the policy process (either by relevance of information and/or by extent of public involvement). Basically, new e-communication tools are creating new opportunities for these invisible informal leaders (citizen leaders) to create collaboration, consensus and compromise, opportunities for inclusiveness and shared power rather than just articulate dissent (as in the case of public meetings or formal policy dialogue) or communicate information to decision-makers. In time, these online groups become virtual communities united by core beliefs and values that further motivate their civic behavior and influence public opinion and decision-making at policy level. Socio-ecological problems at the heart of environmental policy are much too complex to be dealt with through simplistic procedures, thus the need for a new paradigm for citizen involvement in environmental issues and new tools that can respond to the exigencies of contemporary public participation [8]. 2. Environmental governance in Romania, the role of public participation This section consists in an explanation for the state of environmental governance and public participation in environmental matters in Romania: the process of development and implementation of environmental policy in post-socialist Romania has prevented public involvement in environmental policy and establishment of stable patterns of cooperation with non-state actors. In Romania, central government agencies play the main role in environmental decision-making so, traditionally, the citizens must turn to government in attempts to protect the environment and their quality of life. Public participation procedures and the way the authorities understand to manage them clearly do not have as a result efficient environmental problem solving, with adequate community consensus and participation. Citizens or civil organizations attempting to participate in these procedures with the intention to influence decisions in early stages of environmental decisionmaking are frustrated by the lack of transparency of these meetings, the adversarial character, time limits, lack of dialogue, lack of expertise or expert advice, that they occur too late, when decisions are too advanced to influence the outcome, that they find an already made coalition with economic interests (recently this happened in the context of waste regulation [4], [2]). Citizens are also frustrated by the consultative character of the public hearings and lack of impact of participation in the outcome. As a result, participation is limited in Romania and there is an acute need for solutions in order to make envi

E-Petitioning in Environmental Matters in Romania: Is it an Effective Environmental Governance Tool?