Source: Danas
Ecological incidents warn us that, in addition to repression, a better prevention is needed. Information on ecological incidents, as a fully reliable confirmation of irresponsible correlation with the biggest value we have - environment, always reminds us on numerous questions which remain to be answered properly. Since the responsibility always comes first, it is certainly interesting that, at least in the case of Beli Timok river, reaction of authorities, bearing in mind our situation, was unusually prompt and vigorous. Plants whose productions were suspected to have caused pollution of water, were temporary prohibited to operate, and the criminal proceedings were instigated against the responsible persons.Fast and consequent tackling of the responsibility issue concerning environmental pollution is a normal thing, or at least it should be. But, notwithstanding conceptual or concrete importance of punishing the responsible ones, we must not neglect essential truth that the factual results in protecting any social value should be sought in systematic, and in particular preventive, rather than repressive measures. Therefore, contamination of waters in Svrljig and Beli Timok, Despotovica and Juzna Morava rivers, is not the only nor the biggest, but "good enough" reason to remind ourselves that we are one of few European countries which still has not accepted the Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Judicial Availability concerning environmental issues - Aarhus Convention.
The Aarhus Convention lays down three fundamental rights establishing society whose environment can be healthy for present and future generations. First, right to have free access to information implying, in general, public availability of all data related to environmental protection. Then, public right to participate in decision-making determining the liability for authorities to allow public involvement in enactment of regulations, laws, by-laws and urban plans, and even more - participation in procedures related to approval of infrastructure facilities construction - highways, factories, industrial facilities, fish ponds etc. Finally, the right to judicial availability that foresees efficient legal protection of two abovementioned rights, including constitutional legal protection.
Certainly, gap between our real situation and the better one, hypothetical and founded on the principles of Aarhus Convention, is quite obvious. Typical example is the "fuss" about public request to be presented with the contents of the Contract on Construction of Highway Horgos - Pozega. It is not very important that such request was not motivated by ecological reasons. Because, the fuss made by the line ministry in this case, is a result of attitude that all information on construction of the highway should represent secret, and inaction at the request of authority in charge (Commissioner for Information) to make the contents of the contract public, in any case confirms, if not domination, then surely strong presence of ideas for decades far away from those constituting Aarhus Convention.
That's why it is important that public, through insisting on guaranteed rights, values achievements and breakthroughs made in legislative field pertaining to the free access to information, which are in line with those referred to in Aarhus Convention. In that way, according to Article 4 of our Law on Free Access to Information related to jeopardizing and protection of environment, there shall always be justified public interest to be aware of them, and the option to prove the opposite shall be excluded; and Article 16 provides for that authorities shall be liable to communicate other information of public importance to claimant "without delay, and within 15 days at latest" and these information - "within 48 hours". It is not less important that state, by guaranteeing the right to have free access to information, necessarily guarantees active legal component implying public right to ask and get information and passive component, i.e. liability for authorities to make information of special interest public, even if they haven't been formally requested.
Literally horrific and alarming signal - large quantity of dead fish "allowed" public to know that as of the critical day, amount of ammonia in Beli Timok waters was 16 times higher than allowed. However, was it "only" 3, 5 or 7 times higher than allowed, just about enough not to kill tons and tons of fish, in the previous day, or seven or fifteen days or a year before that, still remains unknown. In fact, can we at all be satisfied with what we know about the condition of water, earth and air surrounding us? For instance, that over 50 percent of drinking water samples are bellow allowed standards, that nearly any of large waste disposal sites are not safe, that there are no facilities for processing and storage of hazardous waste, that air pollution in many cities is above allowed limitations.
This should remind us about the fact that environmental protection is not only the matter of reacting to an incident but systematic, and exceptionally difficult task. The task whose realization exceeds capacity of authorities and requires effort and support of entire society. In view of that, it is compulsory that entire public has perception of dimensions and complexity of the problems, which is feasible only if they have the broadest access to information on environmental protection. Commissioner for Information
