The Aarhus Convention Reporting Mechanism National Implementation Reports 2011 Experience and lessons learned Aphrodite Smagadi, Aarhus Convention secretariat

Reporting cycles Two reporting cycles since establishment of reporting mechanism (Decision I/8) First cycle (2005): 26 reports (30 Parties) = 87% Second cycle (2008): 35 reports (41 Parties) = 85% Third cycle (2011) – 44 Parties

Experience Valuable information provided Positive developments in legislative frameworks and practical implementation Challenges to implementation identified

Practical challenges Content – not always adequately addressed Format and process Timing and resources

Content: challenge Some reports did not provide adequate answers to the questions Examples: Parties provided lists of instruments without clarifying how they transposed the provisions of the Convention into national law Requested information was provided in answer to different question

Content: recommendation Address all questions Do not forget GMO amendment PPIF reporting format may be used as pilot Consult guidance document prepared by the Compliance Committee

Format: challenges Reports did not follow reporting format Lack of clear structure Secretariat had to re-format (agreed on a format with documents division)

Format: recommendations First time? Follow the structure of 2008 reports Second or third time? Use the previous report and work with track changes to Enable recording of changes Facilitate the translation If previous report not published as official UN document, use submitted version + track changes

Process: challenge Public participation process was criticized as not having been performed in an adequate manner

Process: recommendations Start as early as possible REMEMBER: report must be submitted by second week of December 2010 Two public consultations: First: on the content of the report, before the first draft Second: for comments, to incorporate in a subsequent draft

Timing: challenge Reports were submitted after the deadline (some after MOP-3) Translation delays Refusal of UN conference services to translate and process as UN official documents

Timing: recommendation Submit the reports by the set deadline: 8 December 2010

Suggested timeline Consultation on the content 1 month (July – August) First draft of the NIR1 month (August – September) Consultation on first draft1-2 months (September – early November) Final report preparation (including translation, if necessary) 1 month (early November – 8 December) Submission (180 days before MOP-4)8 December 2010

2011 Reporting cycle Despite challenges, Parties decided at their third meeting (June 2008) to continue current reporting practice until MOP-4 (June 2011) New electronic database in Aarhus Clearinghouse aims to make information easily accessible & allow for online submission of reports:

Compliance Committee Guidance Process Enable broad, effective participation, as early as possible Inter- and intra-agency consultations (identify in advance) Public/stakeholder consultations (multi- stakeholder working groups) Publicly available drafts In the national language

Compliance Committee Guidance Content New information Information on practical implementation Common areas of difficulties

CC Guidance: new information Significant amendments in the laws, regulations, etc. Official interpretation of the laws Guidance to the public on how to exercise their laws New practical measures/arrangements with public authorities Track-changes (consolidated report)

CC Guidance: practical implementation info Challenge: insufficient information Provide information on practical measures institutional arrangements working groups any budgetary allocation capacity building (training)

CC Guidance: content checklist Be specific Follow the non-prescriptive list for possible consideration in the preparation of the NIRs (annex to the CC guidance for reporting)