Espoo Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment

in a Transboundary Context

Workshop on “Making Aarhus work in international forums”

Geneva, 23 February 2011

Nick BonvoisinSecretary to the Espoo Convention, UNECE

www.unece.org/env/eia

 

• Introduction• Espoo Convention

• Provisions• Practice• Possibilities

• Participation in official meetings • Implementation Committee

• Possible issues

 

Introduction

• Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) in a Transboundary Context• Negotiated in late 1980s under UNECE• Adopted and signed in Espoo (Finland) in 1991• Came into force in 1997, with 16 Parties• Now has 45 Parties

• Supplemented by a Protocol on Strategic Environmental Assessment (Kyiv, 2003)• Entered into force in July 2010, with 16 State Parties• Now has 21 Parties• More “domestic” than transboundary

 

Parties Signatories other UNECE

 

Parties Signatories other UNECE

 

Party of origin

affected Party

 

Espoo Convention: provisions

• "The Public" means one or more natural or legal persons.• Amended to add: and, in accordance with national

legislation or practice, their associations, organizations or groups

• Affected Party’s public can participate through opportunities to comment on, and object to, proposed activity and to comment on EIA documentation

• Most jurisdictions provide for a public hearing or similar• Usually affected Party looks after public participation in

its country, but there is joint responsibility• Public has access to information (notification, scoping?,

EIA)• Bilateral consultations

• General public normally not present (e.g. security: NPP)

 

• Bilateral agreements• Joint bodies• Coordination meetings

• Increase transparency of preparatory meetings between focal points of concerned Parties, e.g. by making meeting reports available to the public – to allow all stakeholders to know how EIA procedure would be coordinated and, possibly, how to make comments

• Impediments to public participation: language, timing, volume of documentation, abstract/distant projects

• Public awareness-raising events – Parties asked to report• By a letter from the Bureau (limited response)• In national report on implementation (some information:

workshops, etc.)

Espoo Convention: practice

 

• Potential for strengthening public participation provisions, e.g.• In decision-making by affected Party on whether to

participate in transboundary EIA procedure• In scoping (amendment goes part way)• Define (minimum) translation requirements and

responsibilities• Define minimum timing for procedural steps

Espoo Convention: possibilities

 

Participation in meetings

• Public, including NGOs, participate as observers• In practice, given an equal hearing and have influence,

but cannot vote or decide• Presently 5 NGOs selected by Bureau against set of

criteria determined by Bureau and following open invitation – these NGOs receive travel & subsistence allowances to participate in meetings:• Meeting of the Parties (governing body)• Working Group (subsidiary body)

• In future, perhaps greater financial constraint … and being made clear that priority for funding is States

• Not present in Bureau meetings • never challenged/questioned by NGOs?

• Often present – and a key actor – in workshops

 

Participation in Implementation Committee

• Committee provides for review of compliance:• Submission (Party-Party, self)• Committee initiative

• Some public presence in Committee sessions, but many agenda items closed to observers

• Public can provide information to Committee• This is encouraged: Form; Brochure

• But no public “trigger” (c.f. Aarhus communication) – criteria set• Information has so far led to correspondence with Parties, but

not so far to a “Committee initiative”• Observations made to Belgian & Dutch Governments• Recommendation made to Belarus Government (still being

considered)

• Try to release publicly as much information as possible, as soon as possible, but some restrictions. Committee has proposed changes to its rules to increase transparency (assumption of publication)

 

Implementation Committee opinions

• “… copyright protection should not be considered as allowing for the prevention of the public availability of the full environmental impact assessment documentation”

• “In the light of article 3, paragraph 8, the Committee came to the conclusion that there was an obligation to inform the public concerned in the affected Party of the final decision”

• Reflected in draft decision on review of compliance

 

Potential areas for strengthening of public participation

• Transparency of bilateral/multilateral cooperation under Espoo

• Strengthening of public participation provisions in Espoo?

• Public access to meetings• Financial constraints• Bureau?

• Access by public to procedure for review of compliance (Implementation Committee), especially for Protocol on SEA

 

For more about the Espoo Convention

• Visit our website: www.unece.org/env/eia

• Or email: eia.conv@unece.org / nicholas.bonvoisin@unece.org