Title: The role of Environmental NGOs in Bulgaria for better quality administration for the public
Author: Cobra
Last saved by: Juraj Sklenar

The role of the third sector- particularly of environmental NGOs - in Bulgaria for better quality administration for the public
Petja Radovanova PhD, New Bulgarian University
Marija Samardjieva PhD, Union of Bulgarian Parks & Landscape Specialists

1. Introduction:
As it was mentioned on the previous conference ( Radovanova, Samardjeva 1999 ) all local level environmental protection activities in Bulgaria are carried out on the basis of set environmental regulations. Historically, the 1991 Environmental Protection Law states the general rules for development environmental policy at different levels and gave many rights to local self-government and local administration ( Hak 1996 ). The Bulgarian Environmental Strategy of 1994 formulates the overall environmental policy of the country. The LEAP is initiative that should be undertaken by local government, citizens, or NGOs. However, there is not enough practical experience.

2. Objectives and target groups.
The main goal of the paper is to provide information about problems, challenges and future trends for good quality working relationship between local administration and environmental NGOs in Bulgaria. It were investigated both possibilities and obstacles for better co-operation between local authority and environmental non-governmental organisations in Bulgaria in order to public administration services in to be improved. There were formulated the following research questions:
1) 	Are there available political and social conditions for co-operation between environmental NGO and local administration?
2) 	What are the main problems for better co-operation?
3) 	What are future trends in their relationships?
4) 	What are suggestions and recommendations that they can be made?

There were two main target groups. First one consist representatives (leaders, staff members or fund-raising officer) from eleven leading environmental NGOs in Bulgaria and second one – representatives (major, vice-major, environmental protection officer or landscape architecture officer) from ten local county councils in Sofia. Ten not–for profit target organisations were chosen based on existed literature (Mateeva 1995; REC 1994c), which give information about status and development of environmental NGOs in Bulgaria. According to the directories of NGOs (Guigas 1997; Khristova 1997), profiles of environmental NGOs in Bulgaria include different factors. Two of them  - international umbrella and national network - were chosen as the most informative factors for the variety of environmental NGOs in Bulgaria. The all one hundred and fifteen (115) environmental NGOs listed in REC directory (Gijugas 1997) were categorised in three groups, as follows: 
Group I - environmental NGOs in Bulgaria which are members under international umbrella - twenty one (21) NGOs from hundred and 115 total environmental NGOs in Bulgaria, Two organisations: (ten percent from twenty one) and the are: Bulgarian Society for the Protection of Birds (BSPB); Birds of Prey Protection Society - Sofia (BPPS) 
Group II - environmental NGOs organisations with national network - they are 43 organisations from 115 listed NGOs in Bulgaria; Three organisations: (seven percent from forty three NGOs) : Green Balkans Federation -  Plovdiv (GBF), Green Balkans Society - Sofia (GBS), Independent Society of Ecoglasnost (ISE);
Group III - environmental NGOs without international umbrella or national network - they are 51 from total 115 environmental NGOs. Six organisations: (twelve percent from fifty-one NGOs) Borrowed Nature Association (BN), Bulgarian Association for Municipal Environmental Experts - Sliven (BAMEE), Green Alternative (GA), Scouts Tourist Club (STC), Union of Bulgarian Parks and Landscape Specialists (UBPLS) and For the Earth (FE). The need of later comparison and comparative analysis, requires those organisations to be grouped in two main categories - type A and type B. Type A - consists fife organisations from both groups I and II, which are bigger and more developed organisations with a particular network, and type B - consists six organisations, which are smaller organisations without network (fig.1). 

 Type B 
six  NGOs 
without network 

Type A 
Five NGOs with 
Umbrella/ network 

Group III IIII

Group I 
2 NGO

Group II 
 3 NGOs

Fig.1. Research groups of eleven environmental NGOs in Bulgaria interviewed.
The designed questionnaire for the first target group have a questions grouped in four groups. The full content of the questions is presented in Appendix 1
I.	Identification of organisation.
II.	Categorisation of organisational activities and levels of program activities. 
III.	Organisational problems and relationship with local administration. 
IV.	Evaluation and vision to the future. 

The second target group consists environmental officers and/or counsellors – fifteen in total - representatives of ten local districts of Sofia. There are - Local District Studentska, Local District Sredetz, Local District Serdika, Local District Triaditza, Local District Ljulin, Local District Krasno selo, Local District Mladost, Local District Izgrev, Local District Nadejda.and Local District Novi Iskar. 

The questionnaire that have been designed for the second group have three group of questions, as follows: 
I.  Identification of organisation / contact person. 
II. Relationship with environmental NGOs?
III. Evaluation and vision to the future work in environmental NGOs.
Full content of the questions is presented in Appendix 2.
The received results will help the following hypotheses to be tested:

3. Methodology.
The research methodology include several stages such as summarised bellow:
1) 	Semi-structured interviews ( see Appendix I and II)
2) Personal communications - further personal contacts were needed in order to be clarified detailed information. More often, informal talks were very helpful in collecting valuable information. 
3) Comparative analysis - there were maid an analysis of the information from both sites - from point of view of local administration and 
4) Conclusions and recommendations - collected information and analytical material allowed to be made conclusions and recommendations for the future. 

4. Research findings and hypotheses.
In spite of the difficulties to find persons from both target groups which are ready to co-operate and to share their own experience - there were carried out in-depth interviews and informal talks with more than twenty two representatives from environmental NGOs and local districts in Sofia. There were found examples of very good working relationship between environmental NGOs and local administration. However, misunderstanding and ignorance of the role of the environmental NGOs for better service of public on local administrative level is appear. Based on the results from interviews with eleven case studies of environmental NGOs and representative from eleven environmental experts from local administration in Sofia, analysis and general conclusions could be made. The following three hypotheses would be tested.
The first hypotheses is: There are existed good legislative base, political and social conditions for co-operation between third sector and local administration in the area of environmental protection. 
The second hypothesis is: Environmental not-for profit organisations and local administration wish and ready to be a partners for better public service. 
The third hypothesis: Further training, retraining and education are needed in order to be improved efficiency of co-operation between NGOs and local authority towards better service for the public and democratic community development.

4. 1. Research findings and conclusions.
Research results are discussed separately for both target groups. 
4.1.1.	Research findings from interviews with environmental NGOs. 
The data for the first group was collected in 1998/99 ( Radovanova 1999 ) and could be grouped according to the most important points in questionnaire. 
a) Categorisation of NGOs program activity.
The data for areas of common for a five years development is given on table 1. According to the data for the program activities of environmental NGOs interviewed - the common areas for all environmental NGOs interviewed are environmental protection and nature conservation. There are some differences between different groups. The variety of program activities for NGOs from group I - such as BSPB and BPPS - which have 
Table 1.  Areas of common program activity of environmental NGOs in Bulgaria interviewed, 1994-98 
| | ACTIVITIES
| NGOs | Env. Protection | Nature conservation | Env. Education & training | Community development | Improvement of legislation
N | Year | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98
GroupI | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
1 | BSPB | 1988 | | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | | | x | | | | | | | x | | | | |
2 | BPPS | 1990 | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Group II | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
3 | GBF | 1988 | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x
4 | ISE | 1989 | x | x | | | | | x | x | | | | | x | x | x | | | | x | x | | | | |
5 | GBS | 1992 | x | x | | | | | | | | | x | | | | | x | x | | | | x | x | | |
Group III | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
6 | BN | 1992 | x | x | x | x | x | | | | | | x | x | x | x | | | | | x | x | | | | x |
7 | STC | 1992 | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | | | | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | | | | |
8 | ubppls | 1992 | x | x | x | | x | | | | x | x | | x | x | x | | x | x | x | x | | | | | |
9 | bamee | 1993 | x | x | x | x | x | | | | | | x | x | x | x | x | | | | | | x | x | x | x | x
10 | FE | 1994 | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | | | | | | | | | | | | | | x | x
11 | GA | 1996 | | | x | x | x | | | | | | | | | | | | | x | | x | | | x | | x
Legend to Table 1 and table 2.  x= relevant (positive) answer; empty spaces = not relevant 

Table 2. The common level of program activity of environmental NGOs in Bulgaria interviewed, 1994-98 
| | LEVEL OF PROJECT ACTIVITY
| | International | National | Regional | Local
N | Year | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98
Group I | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
1 | BSPB | 1988 | | | | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | | | | x | | | | | |
2 | BPPS | 1990 | x | x | x | x | | x | x | x | x | x | | | | | | x | x | x | x | x
Group II | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
3 | GBF | 1988 | | | | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | | | | |
4 | ISE | 1989 | x | x | | | | | | x | x | x | | | | | | | | | |
5 | GBS | 1992 | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | | x | x | x | | | | | |
Group III | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
6 | BN | 1992 | x | x | x | | | | | | | | | | x | | x | | | x | |
7 | STC | 1992 | | | | | | | | | | | | | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x
8 | ubppls | 1992 | | | | | x | | x | | x | x | | | | | | x | x | x | x | x
9 | bamee | 1993 | x | x | | | | | | | | | | | x | x | x | x | | | |
10 | FE | 1994 | | | | | | | | x | x | x | | | | | | | | | |
11 | GA | 1996 | | | | | | | | | | | | | x | x | x | | | x | x | x

international umbrella is not so big. Just in the recent two years BSPB have started to work in the area of environmental education and community development. Probably it is a consequence of both requirements of umbrella organisations and lack of urgent need to look for alternative types of activities in order to survive. 

There is clear tendency for group II of bigger variety in program activity towards environmental education, community development and improvement of environmental legislation. The third group - NGOs without network - has developed a wider variety of program activities during the given period of time. For example BN has carried out some projects in the area of environmental education from 1994 and recently implemented a project s for community development. The project activity of the Union of Bulgarian Parks and Landscape Specialists always concern both environmental protection and community development. The data concerning program activities level of eleven environmental NGOs in Bulgaria is presented on table 2. It is clear, that the predominant level of common activities of NGOs from Type A is national during the whole period of time. For example all five NGOs from that type - BSPS, BPPS, GBF, ISE and GBS - work on national level projects in 1996, 1997 and 1998. Some of them - like GBS and BPPS had project on international level, too. Five from total six organisations from Type B, worked on local level and four of them - on regional. 

b) Organisational problems and relationship with local authority.
Information for problems and deficiencies in common operation of environmental NGOs in Bulgaria interviewed is given in Table 3. It can be made the following conclusions. First, the lack of financial resources is a problem for the majority of environmental NGOs interviewed from both types A (NGOs with network or under umbrella) and B (environmental NGOs without network/ umbrella). Only two organisations - one from Type A  (BN) and one from Type B (BSPB) have no current financial needs. On the other site not all interviewed claimed that the information about existed funds and resources is within the major problems. That is true for four from eleven total NGOs - all from group II and one from Group III (UBPLS).  Second important problem concerning number of NGOs answering which is appear is lack of relevant laws and regulations. Third one is lack of wide public support. Finally, the positive public perception and development of relevant to the third sector laws and regulations became more important for the sustainable future of environmental NGOs in Bulgaria. 

c) Evaluation and vision to the future work in environmental NGOs.
In general, the majority of environmental NGOs - nine except ISE and UBPLS - have idea for alternative organisational operation more or less developed. Concerning the possible areas of development in a future, ten from total eleven NGOs claimed that they would continue their work in environmental protection. Nine from all eleven NGOs believe that environmental education was evaluated on the second place. Third area, according to the answers of seven from eleven NGOs, is the area of nature conservation and the fourth one is environmental training. It is important to be mentioned those three organisations - BSPB, GBS and BN- which have more clear ideas for the alternative future development. For example BSPB intent to develop activities in raising public awareness and public involvement in decision-making process, GBS will improve its fund raising activities and BN have idea for integration with business, tourism and agricultural sectors of economy. Two of those organisations - BSPB and GBS are from Type A, but only one of them BSPB is big and rather old. 

Table 3. Current deficiencies and problems in common operative activity.

No

NGOs

Year

Lack of 
financial resources

Lack of information 
about sources
of financing

Lack of public support

Lack of legislation and regulations

Group I (Type A) | | | |
1 | BSPB | 1988 | - | - | x | -
2 | BPPS | 1990 | x | - | x | x
Group I (Type A) | | | |
3 | GBF | 1988 | x | x | x | -
4 | ISE | 1989 | x | x | - | x
5 | GBS | 1992 | x | x | - | x
Group I (Type B ) | | | |
6 | BN | 1992 | - | - | x | x
7 | STC | 1992 | x | - | - | x
8 | UBPLS | 1992 | x | x | - | x
9 | BAMEE | 1993 | x | - | - | x
10 | FE | 1994 | x | - | x | x
11 | GA | 1996 | x | - | x | x
Legend for symbols on table 3:  x = positive answer ;  - =  negative answer 

d)  Experts assessment.
When the choice of the most important factors can not be ensured and information about research object is not enough clear, it was implemented a method for ranking the essential factors through expert assessment. Ten factors -important for the self-sustainable future of the environmental NGOs in Bulgaria -are given in table 4. The interviews were carried out with the leading experts from the field of environmental NGOs in Bulgaria. The names of the interviewed leading experts from different environmental NGOs are: 
1. 	Mr. Stoyan Jotov - Bird of Prey Protection Society,  Sofia 
2. 	Mrs, Dr. Marija Samardjieva - Union of Bulgarian Parks/Landscape Specialists
3. 	Mrs. Margarita Poromanska - Union for Protection of Nature, Sofia
4. 	Mr. Kliment Mindjov -  Borrowed Nature Association, Sofia 
5. 	Mr. Petko Tzvetkov - Green Balkans Sofia Society 
6. 	Mr. Pavlin Todorov - Bulgarian Society for Protection of Birds 
7. 	Mrs. Irina Kostadinova - Bulgarian Society for Protection of Birds,  
8. 	Mr. Chtisto Nikolov - Green Balkans Federation , Plovdiv 
9. 	Prof. Radi Radev - Ecoforum Association, Sofia 
10. 	Vladimir Dvoretzki - Academic Youth Ecological Club, Sofia  

The given by the experts ranks were used for making more general conclusions about important for future development factors. Surprisingly, availability of financial resources and availability of information about financial resources were not mentioned as the most important factors for successful future development. The strong leadership was shown as the first and the most important factor for future development.  On the third place according to importance for future development were ranked two factors - readiness for co-operation with different institutions and with other NGOs and availability of business skills. Forth place was given of public support and understanding by the society. Fifth place by the score was given to availability of relevant legislation and regulations. Availability of information about sources and funds is the sixth important factor. The three factor - idea for alternative organisational development, availability of office equipment and need of changes in organisational type were scored on seventh place. 

Table 4. Rank of factors according to their importance for the future organisational development and successful implementation of the mission, according to ten experts. 
N | Factors | Ranking by the environmental experts | Total | R
| Experts | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | score | rank
1 | Availability of business skill | 5 | 9 | 10 | 8 | 9 | 9 | 4 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 75 | III
2 | Idea for alternative  development | 5 | 8 | 7 | 5 | 9 | 9 | 1 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 59 | VII
3 | Availability of office equipment for  rent/ service | 8 | 10 | 5 | 6 | 4 | 7 | 6 | 4 | 6 | 3 | 59 | VII
4 | Availability of financial resources | 10 | 9 | 6 | 6 | 8 | 7 | 10 | 8 | 10 | 6 | 80 | II
5 | Availability of information for funds | 1 | 7 | 3 | 8 | 9 | 9 | 8 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 69 | VI
6 | Availability of relevant legislation and regulations | 10 | 6 | 2 | 6 | 7 | 10 | 8 | 6 | 8 | 7 | 70 | V
7 | Strong  leadership | 10 | 5 | 9 | 8 | 6 | 9 | 7 | 10 | 10 | 8 | 82 | I
8 | Necessity of changes in organisational type | 8 | 7 | 9 | 6 | 8 | 6 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 7 | 59 | VII
9 | Public support /  understanding  by local authority  and  society | 5 | 4 | 8 | 2 | 7 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 8 | 9 | 73 | IV
10 | Readiness for co-operation with other  NGOs | 6 | 4 | 9 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 8 | 9 | 75 | III

Legend to table 4:   1,2,3, ……10 = score; R, I, II, III  = rank. 

As a conclusion, the lack of financial resources is  not the most important for sustainable future development of organisations factor. Public support and understanding from the society and local administration and availability of relevant legislation become more and more important.

e) Conclusions 
1. Within the common type of projects carried out during five years period of time – from 1994 to 1999- nature conservation and protection of the environment are emblematic for the initial period of the majority of environmental NGOs. During the last two years environmental training, community development and improvement of environmental legislation become more widely developed. 
2. In the last three years - from 1996 to 1998- number of projects carried out on a national level per organisation increased. Also, a number of organisation implemented a projects on national level increased gradually from 46 percent in 1995, to 55 percent in 1996 and 64 percent in 1997/ 98. The percentage of the projects on international level is the same during the last two years - 40 percent. The environmental NGOs from group III - organisations without network or umbrella used to work mostly on a regional and local level. 
3. The environmental NGOs interviewed claimed that relationships which have been established with local administration are very good.  Concerning the relations with other environmental NGOs, for the majority of NGOs, the first two years of five years examined period of time were more competitive, and last two years were predominately co-operative.
4. According to NGO assessment made by environmental experts, strong leadership, financial sources and availability of business skills and readiness for co-operation with local administration are the most important factors for further development. It is interesting, that availability of financial resources is not the only requirement for further development of NGOs. Support by the public and local administration and availability of relevant legislation regulating the relationship between environmental NGOs and local authority were ranked on forth and fifth place from the total of ten.

f) Recommendations:
1. There is a need of development and harmonisation with EU standards of Bulgarian legislation and regulations able to encourage relationship between environmental NGOs and local administration. 
2. The is also need of further deeper investigation of a problem between local authority and NGOs and dissemination of information for problems, needs and progress of environmental NGOs and 
3. The central government and local authorities should pay more careful attention to the problems and interests of environmental NGOs by providing financial support, information and by involving them in decision-making process. 

4.1.2. Research findings from interviews with representatives from local authority. 
The data collected can be grouped according to key sections in questionnaire, as follows. 
a) Relationship with environmental NGOs ?
Most of interviewed representatives from local districts in Sofia  – eight from total eleven  - claimed that they have some relationship with environmental NGOs.. However, there have no well-developed partnership, understanding and institutional support between those two target groups. Only few of environmental officers working on local level were  satisfied in work with NGOs and explain it by the following reasons:
- Environmental NGOs have no clear ideas, goals and motivation to work with local authority;
- There is no constant interest from environmental NGOs to the environmental and community problems and conflicts on local level;
- Local authority does not trust NGOs, because there is no strict control by the donor organizations over implementation of NGOs projects and expenditure;
- Usually, students and educational institution schools and kinder gardens - look for information and support from administration, but they do not offer their help.
- All eleven local districts in Sofia claimed that there are no relevant rules and regulations;
- Majority of interviewed – eight from total eleven local capital district- have no idea where to find information about environmental not-for profit organizations.

b)  Evaluation and vision to the future work with environmental NGOs.
Collected information from the section 3 of the questionnaire II is presented in tables (table 3 and table 4). Data in table 3 shows the most important factors for improvement quality of relationship between environmental NGOs and local authority, as follows:
- Nine representatives from total eleven local administrative offices claimed that environmental NGOs have to be more interested in problems of local administration;
- Seven representatives from total eleven local districts prove, that environmental NGOs have to demonstrate clearly their purposes and position, and have to be more positively motivated to work on local level;
-Five from total eleven civil servants prove that that local authority have also have to be active in co-operation and contacts with environmental NGOs;
- Four from total eleven local administrations said, that improvement of existing situation requires changes in existing legislation;
- Part of interviewed representatives of local administration  (two/ three from total eleven cases ), think that there are also another factors such as – NGOs to collect and disseminate environmental information and advertisements, NGOs to help in organization of public hearings and meetings, environmental NGOs to help in solving existing personnel problems – necessary to be fulfilled in order to be improved relationship between NGOs and local authority. 

The data presented in table 4, shows the necessity of different types of training and further education requested by the environmental officers and counselors. All interviewed officers claimed that the following measures are needed:
- Further training in introduction and analyses of new legislation and regulations;
- Further professional training and exchange of information.
- It is interesting to see that in eight from total eleven local district, environmental officers pointed out that environmental training for local community, young people and children is important factor for improvement of civil services and quality of life. Six from total eleven civil servants prove that they need different types of retraining. In five from total eleven cases interviewed think that officers in ministries in Bulgaria, and particularly in Ministry of Environment and Water also need to improve their professionalism. 

Generally, it is become clear that there are lack of trust, misunderstanding and criticism towards each other in both sites – environmental NGOs and local authority. At least, there is a sign of improvement of their relationship. Leaders and activists from environmental NGOs in Bulgaria have realized that successful institutional development requires public support and understanding by the society. They also claimed that further development of civil society would needed relevant legislation and regulations. On the other site over half of local authority representatives stated that they also have to be active in looking partnership with environmental NGOs and that improvement quality of civil services requires changes in law and regulations in order to local administration to become more powerful. 

4.1.3. Testing the hypotheses.
Based on the analysis of research findings the hypotheses are tested.
a)	The first hypotheses: There are existed good legislative base, political and social conditions for co-operation between third sector and local administration in the area of environmental protection. 
This hypothesis is not true. 
b) The second hypothesis is: Environmental not-for profit organisations and local administration wish and ready to be a partners for better public service. 
This hypothesis is partly true.
c)	The third hypothesis is: Further training, retraining and education are needed in order to be improved efficiency of co-operation between NGOs and local authority towards better service for the public and democratic community development.
 It is absolutely true.

As a conclusion, in spite of the financial difficulties of the period of transition, the lack of financial resources is not the most important factor for sustainable future development of environmental non-governmental organisations. Public support and understanding from the society and local administration and availability of relevant legislation become more and more important. Majority of (eight from total eleven local districts) environmental officers pointed out, that environmental training for local community, young people and children is important factor for improvement of civil services and quality of life. That is way, civil society development, closer co-operation and education of local people, students and younger generation are the most solution for better co-operation between local administration and environmental NGOs.

Table 3.  What is necessary to be done in order to improve relationship between environmental NGOs and local authority.

Factors | Izgrev | Mladost | Kr.selo | Sredetz | Students | Lulin | N.Iskara | Serdikaa | Nadezda | Triaditza | Bankja
1.NGOs to be more active in co-operation with local authority | x | | x | x | x | x | | x | x | x | x
2. NGOs to participate in collection environmental data | | | | | | | | | | | x
3. NGOs have to demonstrate clear ideas and position | x | x | x | | | | | x | x | x | x
4. NGOs to assist in personnel problems | | | x | | | | | | | | x
5. Necessary changes of legislation | | x | | x | | | x | | | | x
6. NGOs to help in organization public hearings | | | | x | | | x | | | x |
7. Better understanding by the central government | | | | | x | | | | | |
8.Local administration to be more active in contacts with NGOs | | x | | x | x | | x | x | | |
9.NGOs to disseminate information and advertisements | | | | | | | | x | | | x
10. To have more strong control by the funding organizations | | | | | | | | | | x |

Table 4. Do you need further training and / or education and what kind? 

Factors | Izgrev | Mladost | Kr.selo | Sredetz | Students | Lulin | N.Iskara | Serdikaa | Nadezda | Triaditza | Bankja
1. Professional training | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x
2. Training about new legislation and regulations | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x
3. Information by MOSW and RIOS | x | | | | | | | x | | |
4.Professional exchange and information | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x
5 Conflict resolution | | | z | x | | | x | | | |
6. European harmonization, new principles and regulations | | | | | | | x | | | | x
7.Fund raising | | | | | | | | x | | |
8.Retraining | | | x | x | x | x | | | | x | x
9.Local people, children education | | x | x | x | | x | x | x | | x |
10. Training of officers in ministries | | | x | | x | x | x | | x | x |

Literature:
Gjugas, O. 1997. NGO directory: a directory of environmental non-governmental organizations in Central and Eastern Europe. Szentendre: Regional Environmental Centre
Hak, T. 1996. Developing local and regional environmental action plan. Case studies of Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and the Slovak Republic. Budapest: Regional Environmental Centre.
Khristova, S. 1997. Tretijat sector v Balgaria: Statistical barometer. [Third sector in Bulgaria. Statistical barometer ]. Sofia: National Statistical Institute
Mateeva, M. 1995. Evaluation of the Grants Program in Bulgaria during 1994. Report. Sofia: Regional Environmental Centre
Radovanova, P., Samardjieva, S., 1999. Relationship between local authorities and environmental non-governmental organizations in Bulgaria during the transition, 7^th Annual NISPAcee Conference. 24-27^th March, Sofia.
Radovanova, P. 1999. Environmental non-governmental organisations in Bulgaria: Organisational development and alternative financing. Master of Science thesis, Department of Environmental Sciences and Policy, Central European University, Budapest.

Appendix 1. 
I.	Identification of organization.
I.1. NGO Name and address.
I.2. NGO mission:
I.3. Contact details.
I.4. Number of full-time staff,  part-time staff, members and volunteers.
I.5. Financial sources – public, private, self-financing.
II.	Categorization of organizational activities and levels of program activities. 
II.1. Define the main areas of organizational activity for the last five years ( 94-99)?
Activities | 1995 | 1996 | 1997 | 1998 | 1999
Nature conservation | | | | |
Environmental protection | | | | |
Environmental training/ education | | | | |
Community development | | | | |
Other | | | | |

II.2. List the level of project activities?
Activities | 1995 | 1996 | 1997 | 1998 | 1999
International | | | | |
National | | | | |
Regional | | | | |
Local | | | | |

III.	Relationship with local administration and other NGOs. 
III.1. Do you have a relationship with local administration?  Yes….No….Please, specify and give more details?………………………………………………………..
III.2. What are your impressions? 
IV.	Evaluation and vision to the future for your co-operation with local administration.
IV.1. What are the main problems – which you meet in your common activity?
-	lack of money
-	lack of information
-	lack of relevant laws and regulations 
-	lack of public support
IV.2. What is your vision for the most possible ways of organizational development?
-	education and training
-	environmental protection
-	 nature conservation
-	community development

Appendix 2. 
I. Identification of organization / contact person. 
I.1. Name and address.
I.2. Position:
I.3. Organization details:
I.4. Number of full-time staff,  part-time staff, members and volunteers.
I.5. What are main areas of co-operation with not-for-profit organizations? 
-	environmental protection 
-	community development
-	human rights and preparing new legislation
-	other
II. State of the relationship with environmental NGOs ?
II.1. Do you have good relationship with environmental NGOs? …Yes…..NO….
Please, give more details about organisations to whom you , subjects ?………..
II.2. Is there a relevant legislation and regulations concerning relationship between NGOs and local authority? 
II.3. Do you know where to look for information and contacts with environmental NGOs in Bulgaria? 
III. Evaluation and vision to the future work with environmental NGOs.
III.1. What do you think is necessary needed for better co-operation between environmental NGOs and local authority and better services for the people?
III.2. What are your expectations for work with environmental NGOs in the future? 
III.3. Do you need any kind additional training or further education? …Yes….No….
Please, specify what kind?