NGO statement to the 10th anniversary of the Espoo Convention
Draft, by Thomas ALGE (OEKOBUERO,
30 July 2007
NGO perspective:10th anniversary of the Espoo Convention
10 years after entry into force of the Espoo Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context environmental law and decision making are unthinkable in the majority of the UN-ECE region without pursuing an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of projects having transboundary environmental impacts. The horizontal approach of the Espoo Convention to have an integrated view on potential environmental impacts was a tremendous step forward in environmental policy and decision-making.
The obligations under the Espoo Convention to carry an EIA for transboundary larger scale projects led to improvements in national legislation that, in principle, do not limit EIA to transboundary projects but include similar domestic procedures.
We stress the need for further improvement of the practical implementation of and compliance with the Convention. The application of the Convention by parties shows a wide range of problems that constitute obstacles to proper implementation of the Convention. It can be seen as common problem that, in transboundary context, signatory states do not show sufficient efforts to properly inform the public of the neighbouring country in an understandable (e.g. translations), comprehensive (e.g. not all documents shown) and timely (e.g. information after project has started) manner. It also appears that public authorities of most signatory states or not able or not willing to communicate to each other appropriately.
Substantive deficiencies can be observed in most of the cases NGOs have participated. From our experience one of the largest shortcomings is the lack of alternative assessments. This is an important tool to reduce environmental impacts since many projects might have less environmental impact if they would be carried out in other locations or by other means that serve for the same purpose. Further problems occur in the actual assessment of the environmental impact. In many cases some environmental impacts are not taken into account. Often projects are cut into smaller pieces that have less environmental impact if assessed separately (salami slicing). In addition cumulative impacts of other projects and indirect effects are rarely taken into account.
In many signatory states, the Aarhus Convention became the basic tool for NGOs to participate and enforce the Espoo Convention since it provides for public participation and access to justice in proceedings related to the Espoo Convention. Governmental authorities and the public need better understanding of the value that public participation adds to the decision making process. Public participation ensures transparency and results in better decision taken by the governments. For both the Aarhus and Espoo Convention it can be stated that there is a vital need for financial assistance to the public concerned since participation is time consuming and very expensive due to need of technical and legal expertise.
The implementation of and compliance with the Convention requires stronger daily commitments by UN-ECE members. Compliance mechanism, including the Implementation Committee, should become stronger to play and important role in promoting better compliance and implementation. It should allow public trigger of non-compliance cases which overcomes political reasons that prevent countries from using the compliance mechanism.
It has been four year since the adoption of the SEA Protocol to the
10 years after its entry the Espoo Convention continues to trigger notable improvements in environmental decision making. Further close cooperation between the governments and NGOs is a requirement for practical achievements of the goals of the Convention and the Protocol.
Pdf of this contribution: http://doku.cac.at/ngo_statement_espoo_convention.pdf
geändert am 31.08.2007