|
EUROPEAN ECO FORUM NEWSLETTER No 34
|
||||||||||
1. FOURTH MEETING OF PARTIES TO THE ESPOO CONVENTION The fourth meeting of Parties to the Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context (Espoo, 1991) took place in Bucharest, Romania, on 19-21 May 2008. Quite a few non-governmental organizations took part in the meeting, including the European ECO Forum (represented by Andriy Andrusevich, "Society and Environment" , Ukraine ), Society for Sustainable Development (Azerbaijan), Independent Ecological Expertise (Kyrgyzstan), Eco Globe (Armenia), WWF-Romania, Danube Environmental Forum (Romania), Environment Experts Association (Romania). The issue of non-compliance by Ukraine in the course of construction of the Danube-Black Sea canal was one of the major issues at the meeting. On 21 May, the Meeting of Parties took a decision stating that Ukraine is in non-compliance with its obligations under the Espoo Convention. The Meeting of the Parties issued a conditional caution to the Government of Ukraine to become effective on October 30, 2008, unless Ukraine revises its final decision on Bystroe project and starts consultations required under the Espoo Convention. At the meeting, the Government of Ukraine made a commitment to revise its approval of the project. On 20 May, the environment ministers from seven countries of South-Eastern Europe (Bulgaria, Croatia, Greece, Montenegro, Romania, Serbia and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) signed the Bucharest Agreement that provides for further implementation of the Espoo Convention in this sub-region. During the Meeting of Parties, the European ECO Forum delivered a statement on behalf of the NGOs. The European ECO Forum described a wide range of problems that constitute obstacles to proper implementation of the Espoo Convention. European ECO Forum stressed that in transboundary context countries do not show sufficient efforts to properly inform the public of the neighbouring country in an understandable, comprehensive and timely manner. European ECO Forum mentioned that the Espoo Convention compliance mechanism, including the Implementation Committee, should become stronger to play an important role in promoting better compliance and implementation, and that the procedure should allow public trigger of non-compliance cases. This would overcome political reasons that prevent countries from using the compliance mechanism. European ECO Forum noted with concern quick development of nuclear power projects in the UNECE region, when too often EIA procedures under the Espoo Convention are either not applied or not applied properly. In this regard three specific projects were mentioned: Belene nuclear power plant in Bulgaria, the recent approval of plans to construct the first nuclear power plant in Belarus, and Mochovce nuclear power plant in Slovakia. Among other issues, the European ECO Forum called for quick ratifications of the Protocol on S trategic Environmental Assessment to the Espoo Convention. The documentation of the Meeting of Parties is available at http://www.unece.org/env/eia/bucharest.htm For more information contact: Andriy Andrusevych
2. THIRD MEETING OF PARTIES TO THE AARHUS CONVENTION On 11-13 June 2008, Riga hosted the Third Meeting of Parties to the Aarhus Convention (MOP-3). Three days before the Meeting of Parties, about 100 NGOs from 33 countries came to Riga under the umbrella of the European ECO Forum to put forward their demands concerning proper implementation and further development of the Aarhus Convention. These demands were presented in the European ECO Forum’s Riga Appeal, which complemented the Vienna Declaration, adopted by the International ECOs Strategy meeting in December 2007 and supported by 197 organisations from 43 countries. On the way to Riga, the European ECO Forum prepared a Critical Assessment of the National Implementation Reports (NIRs) developed by Parties to the Aarhus Convention. This assessment evaluated both preparatory process and content of these reports. NGOs stressed that many NIRs focused on legislative transposition but failed to show what efforts had been made to implement the Aarhus Convention or how effective that effort is. Main concerns expressed were regarding the absence of real examples of implementation and indication of barriers, shortcomings and problems for effective implementation of the Aarhus Convention. MOP-3 resulted in the adoption of a strategic plan for the Convention which includes elements for improving public participation, funding for access to justice and expansion of the Convention to the global level. The MOP-3 also agreed to establish a Task Force to work further on the second pillar of the convention on public participation, an area of implementation that is rather weak. Although the Task Force on Public Participation cannot be formally approved until the next MOP, Parties have vowed to set up an informal expert group to work on the issue in the meantime, with Ireland volunteering to lead the effort. The MOP also approved decisions calling on six parties (Albania, Armenia, Kazakhstan, Lithuania, Turkmenistan and Ukraine) to take measures to bring their countries into compliance with the Convention. The MOP issued conditional cautions to Turkmenistan and Ukraine, both of which had already been found to be in non-compliance at the previous MOP in 2005. Unless certain steps are taken by the end of the year, these cautions will take effect from 1 May 2009. The MOP also decided on an interpretation on how amendments to the Convention enter into force. This will have a crucial impact on when and how the GMO amendment, adopted in Almaty three years ago, will enter into force. The Parties approved a statement calling on signatories to ratify the Protocol on Pollutant Release and Transfer Registers in order to bring about its entry into force by 2009. The M OP adopted the Riga Declaration, which recognizes the accomplishments of the Convention’s first 10 years and the main challenges to its implementation. On 12 June, during the anniversary reception celebrating the Convention’s accomplishments, at the initiative of the European ECO Forum, over 25 individuals received the Order of Knights of the Aarhus Convention for outstanding achievements and 10 or more years’ long involvement with the Convention. The next Meeting of Parties to the Aarhus Convention will be hosted by Moldova in 2011. The Riga Appeal, press releases, Participate Riga Express newsletters and other documents of the European ECO Forum are available in English and Russian at the web-site of the Public Participation Campaign http://www.participate.org/ as well as through our general web-site http://www.eco-forum.org/ The documents and decisions of MOP-3 are available at http://www.unece.org/env/pp/mop3.htm For more information please contact: Mara Silina
3. FIRST DRAFT OF THE EFE REFORM PLAN PRODUCED, SECOND DRAFT COMING SOON On 23-24 June 2008, the Extended Bureau of the UNECE Committee on Environmental Policy (CEP) met in Geneva. The agenda was dedicated to the reform of the “Environment for Europe” process. Discussions concentrated on the Outline of the EfE reform plan prepared by the secretariat in consultation with the CEP Bureau (see http://www.unece.org/env/cep/ExtendedBur.html). During these discussions the European ECO Forum stressed that the document should refer to the main goal of the reform, i.e. making the EfE process more effective. European ECO Forum proposed to add a new chapter on the work to be done between the conferences, since the proposed draft outline only addressed the preparation of and the conferences itself. The European ECO Forum also proposed indicator-based mid-term implementation reviews as a regular activity of the EfE process. The Outline includes two options with regard to the convening bodies for EfE conferences – the CEP and the Working Group of Senior Officials (WGSO). The discussion within the European ECO Forum showed that it was a difficult choice for environmental citizens’ organizations (ECOs). ECOs want to preserve their broad involvement into the EfE process after the reform but they would also like to make the EfE more effective. If the transformation leads to a permanent process as suggested by European ECO Forum, this would require changes to the WGSO’s Terms of Reference (ToR) and extending the mandate of the WGSO, or this would require integrating the WGSO and ExeCom mandates and format into the CEP and its Bureau. The later option would require changes in the CEP’s ToR and Scope of work with very clear references to ECOs’ involvement. In general, CEP option looks more effective from the technical point of view, but the WGSO option means more dedication to the EfE, and, in a light of permanent performance, it might be more relevant to keep the WGSO instead of disbanding it. Therefore, the European ECO Forum suggested first to discuss the conference-to-conference approach versus permanent process, and then to come back to convening bodies of the EfE. As far as countries’ position is concerned, the USA strongly supports the WGSO option and sees the EfE as a process to prepare and organize conferences. The EU wants to accommodate the EfE within the CEP. Slovenia on behalf of the EU proposed continued EfE process, including the roadmap on implementation. The EU planned to submit a new chapter on implementation to the Secretariat after the meeting to be included in the second draft. Switzerland also supports the ongoing process. Related to the format of the conferences, the European ECO Forum proposed to include plenary session between Ministers and NGOs in the roundtable format, as it was done in Aarhus in 1998 and in Kyiv in 2003. However, Slovenia expressed doubt that the reform plan needed such details as the conference structure and suggested to leave it up to a host country. As for the outcomes, the EU and Georgia find negotiated outcome important and insisted that the Declaration as the negotiated outcome is instrumental for shaping and implementation of the domestic policy. The European ECO Forum also strongly supports the negotiated outcome of the conferences. Contrary to this, USA is convinced that the negotiations are consuming a lot of time during preparations and, therefore, are of a limited value. Norway believes that we need the Declaration, but it should be limited to the topics of conference. The meeting discussed the whole text of draft Outline and the Chair requested written comments. The European ECO Forum submitted proposals in writing, however these were not considered. The USA reminded that the rules on observers say that proposals from observers could only be considered if supported by at least one country. Having received support from a few countries, the European ECO Forum proposed new language on the indicator-based mid-term implementation review and the NGO-Ministers roundtable. The second draft of the reform plan should be ready soon to allow preparation to the CEP meeting on 13-15 October 2008. For European ECO Forum and other documents in relation to the reform
process please see For more information please contact: Anna Golubovska-Onisimova, MAMA-86
4. TENTH ANNUAL MEETING OF THE REPIN NETWORK The Tenth Annual Meeting of the Regulatory Environmental Programme Implementation Network (REPIN) of Eastern Europe, Caucasus and Central Asia (EECCA) took place in Tashkent, Uzbekistan, on 17-19 June 2008 and discussed progress in adopting innovative instruments of environmental management. The meeting brought together environmental regulators and inspectors from Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Ukraine, the Netherlands, Sweden, as well as representatives of NGOs and industry. Following the report by the Secretariat about the activities of the Network in 2008 , countries shared their experience in implementing the projects of the Network in 2007-2008. With regard to reform of the quality standards for surface waters, the Deputy Head of the Moldovan State Ecological Inspectorate Mr. Mihai Mustea reported the changes in the national regulatory system in this area, including establishing parameters for quality of surface waters which approach the European standards. A representative of Ukrainian Ministry informed the participants about the progress in reforming the system of environmental permits , in particular the draft Law on Environmental Permitting. Currently, Ukraine introduces the system of complex permits, having in mind the Directive 2008/1 ÅÑ , which provides for a differentiated approach towards small, medium and large polluters. Representatives of Belarus and Kazakhstan reported about progress in their countries, in particular about the 2007 Environmental Code in Kazakhstan which includes 4 classes of permitting. The participants discussed with great interest the trial of a rating system for industrial enterprises in Ukraine , presented by participants from Lviv region. It was proposed to continue the work in this area. Suggestions to the draft document on strengthening the environmental effectiveness of industrial activities should be submitted to the Secretariat by 30 July 2008. The second session focused on the analyses of activities of regulatory and enforcement authorities. The Secretariat made a presentation of conclusions and recommendations of the study on funding for regulatory and enforcement authorities in Kazakhstan , where they organized an assessment of budgetary planning and management in the area of environmental control for the Committee of Environmental Management and Control. The study shows that in general, large scale reforms in the system of governmental finance would benefit the Ministry and the Committee of Environmental Management and Control; however, such reforms require serious efforts. There is no link in place between planning of regulatory and enforcement activities and the budget. In present, the number of personnel is not enough for effective implementation of their tasks . The representative of the Institute of European Environmental Policy spoke about the conclusions and recommendations of the study on environmental sanctions in Kazakhstan . The review of the instruments in response to non-compliance covered both administrative sanctions and criminal law sanctions. Major recommendations include :
Kazakhstan and Georgia reported about reforms in activities of environmental inspectorates in these countries . On the second day, discussion focused on REPIN Work Programme for 2008 and draft Work Programme for 2009-2011.The Work Programme for 2008 includes three major parts:
The delegates informed the meeting about country priorities in proposed work programme and discussed the role of EECCA RECs. Based on the outcomes of electronic discussion of the work plan during the past months, the representative of the European ECO Forum named 5 priority areas :
With regard to the project proposal by EECCA RECs on public involvement in EIA, the participants suggested to redraft the proposal to correspond better to existing national legislation and practical application in the countries. Representatives of Kyrgyzstan have several times stressed that EECCA RECs need to provide prior information to national governments about projects implemented by EECCA RECs since these are the activities carried out in the framework of the REPIN network. Comments in relation to the Work Programme for 2009-2011 (REPIN(2008)1) should be submitted in writing to the Secretariat by 15 July 2008. The documents of the meeting are available at :
For more information please contact: Alyona Vasilyeva
5. FOURTH JOINT MEETING OF THE EU WATER INITIATIVE EECCA WORKING GROUP AND EAP TASK FORCE WATER NETWORK The Fourth Joint Meeting of the EU Water Initiative EECCA Working Group and the EAP Task Force Water Network was held on the 12-13 May 2008 in Bucharest, Romania. T his was the first meeting under the chairmanship of Romania in the EUWI-EECCA. The meeting discussed progress and challenges of the National Policy Dialogues on Integrated Water Resources Management (taking place in Moldova, Armenia, Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan) and National Policy Dialogues on Water and Sanitation (taking place in Armenia, Moldova, Georgia and Kyrgyzstan). The participants addressed the joint process of the EU Water Framework Directive and EU Water Initiative. The meeting also discussed key challenges in improvement of the institutional capacity in water supply and sanitation based on the presentation of experiences in Austria, Romania and Ukraine. In small groups, the participants addressed the issue of tariff policies and the problem of excessive decentralization. At the session devoted to experience concerning rural water supply and sanitation, the participants addressed Romanian experience in these area, the National Policy Dialogue on financing strategy for rural water supply and sanitation in Armenia and the problems of rural water and sanitation in Ukraine, as well as issues of NGO participation. The meeting also addressed financing in the water sector, in particular the presentation about cooperation with international financing institutions and donors on facilitation of financing for water investment projects in the Danube and Black Sea Region. The participants discussed future activities of the EU Water Initiative EECCA Working Group and the EAP Task Force Water Network. UNDP showed readiness to support National Policy Dialogues in Central Asia. The UNECE announced the schedule for next National Policy Dialogue meetings ( in Armenia: in June and 27 October; in Kyrgyzstan: 19-20 June; in Moldova: 22-26 September; in Ukraine: 8-9 October). All presentations and documents are available at For more information and full report please contact: Anna Tsvetkova, Mama-86
6. GUIDANCE ON IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROTOCOL ON PRTRs The UNECE Protocol on Pollutant Release and Transfer Registers (PRTRs) requires governments to establish publicly accessible national pollutant registers and requires companies to produce annual reports on their releases and transfers of specified pollutants. A comprehensive guidance document on the Protocol was launched in June 2008. Extensively negotiated by the prospective Parties to the Protocol, the Guidance on Implementation of the Protocol on Pollutant Release and Transfer Registers is designed to help Parties to the Protocol to interpret and fulfill their obligations. It also aims to assist officials in countries considering accession to the Protocol to evaluate and prepare for these obligations, as well as to aid potential users in understanding and taking advantage of PRTR systems. Part One of the Guidance provides an introduction to PRTRs and presents the key issues that Parties should address in the institutional and legislative implementation of the Protocol. Part Two reviews the scope of the Protocol, focusing on the specific types of activities and substances covered, including the different methods for determining facility and waste thresholds. It also reviews the types of data covered, and describes the systems needed to handle data flows. Part Three reviews the Protocol’s data dissemination requirements and addresses capacity-building and public awareness, including areas for international cooperation. The annexes provide background information, including a glossary, a table of analytical methods and indicative lists of pollutants. The publication is currently available in English in hard copy and CD-Rom format, and can also be downloaded from http://www.unece.org/env/pp/prtr.cb.htm Russian and French editions of the Guidance are in preparation. For more information or to obtain copies of the Guidance please contact: Michael Stanley-Jones Source: UNECE Weekly, Issue 274, 23-27 June 2008.
7. NEW PUBLICATION: CASE LAW OF THE AARHUS CONVENTION COMPLIANCE COMMITTEE (2004-2008) The new publication – “Case Law of the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee (2004-2008)” – was developed by the European ECO Forum legal team members: Thomas Alge, OEKOBUERO (Austria), Andriy Andrusevych, Resource and Analysis Center “Society and Environment” (Ukraine), Clemens Konrad, OEKOBUERO (Austria), Zoryana Kozak (for Russian edition), Resource and Analysis Center “Society and Environment” (Ukraine). The publication attempts to summarize the practice of the Compliance Committee of the Aarhus Convention. Since its set up in 2002 by the First Meeting of the Parties of the Aarhus Convention, the Committee has dealt with numerous issues related to practical implementation of the Convention by the parties. In many cases, the Committee had to interpret and apply Convention’s provisions to specific situations brought to its attention by the public and parties, as well as its own rules of procedures. Therefore, substantial case law was developed by the Committee during 2004-2008. Understanding this case law may help policy makers and practitioners to apply and use the Convention in a more effective and uniform way promoting common standards for practical enforcement of environmental human rights in UN ECE region. Case Law of the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee was designed as a reference tool and comprises two parts, each representing similar approach. The first part is Aarhus Convention text (without GMO amendment) with inserted interpretations of its provisions by the Committee. The second part is Decision I/7 of the 1st Meeting of the Parties (establishing the compliance mechanism and setting its key procedural elements) with Committee’s case law on procedural issues (such as admissibility requirements). For inquires please contact: Andriy Andrusevych
8. INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC HEALTH SYMPOSIUM AND SECOND HIGH LEVEL PREPARATORY MEETING TO ITALY-2009 The International Public Health Symposium on environment and health research “Science for policy, policy for science: bridging the gap” will take place in Madrid, Spain, on 20-22 October 2008. It is organized by WHO/Europe and the Institute of Health Carlos III of the Spanish Ministry of Health and Consumer Affairs in co-operation with the European Commission Research Directorate-General. Bringing together scientists, policy-makers and other relevant stakeholders, the Symposium aims at providing a platform for collaboration in public health research with an emphasis on environment and health. Specific objectives include:
The Symposium will present the most recent scientific evidence to policy-makers in preparation of the Fifth Ministerial Conference on Environment and Health in 2009. The Symposium will be followed by the Second High Level Preparatory Meeting in Madrid, Spain, on 22-24 October 2008. This meeting, the second in a series of three high level meetings dedicated to preparing the 2009 Ministerial Conference in Italy, will address Regional Priority Goals III and IV of the Children’s Environment and Health Action Plan for Europe (CEHAPE). The priorities identified by the 2007 midterm review, the most important being climate change, will be discussed in a way to ensure adequate input as commitments in the main political document of the ministerial conference. Other priority areas include:
The first draft of the main political document of the ministerial conference, prepared by the drafting group at its first meeting in Brussels in June, will be discussed and negotiated. The European Environment and Health Committee will meet in an executive session to review the progress achieved in the preparations and continue discussions on the next steps. Further information is available at: http://www.euro.who.int/symposium2008 and http://www.euro.who.int/eehc/meetings/20080523_1 For more information contact: Sascha Gabizon, WECF
9. TALLINN CHARTER ON HEALTH SYSTEMS The European Ministerial Conference on Health Systems “Health Systems, Health and Wealth” took place in Tallinn, Estonia, on 25-27 June 2008. Ministers of health from the 53 countries of the WHO European Region agreed upon a new Tallinn Charter on Health Systems. The Tallinn Charter commits all countries of the region to address major health challenges in a context of demographic and epidemiological change, widening socioeconomic disparities, limited resources, technological development and rising expectations. Member States commit to:
The Tallinn Charter recognizes that all Member States of WHO in the European Region share the common value of the highest attainable standard of health as a fundamental human right. The Tallinn Charter on Health Systems is available at: http://www.euro.who.int/document/E91438.pdf (English) and http://www.euro.who.int/document/e91438r.pdf (Russian). More information about the conference is available at http://www.euro.who.int/healthsystems2008
|