1. 14 June, 20161 A TOOL TO ESTABLISH ENVIRONMENTAL DEMOCRACY John Hontelez European Environmental Bureau (EEB) THE AARHUS CONVENTION

2. 14 June, 20162 John Hontelez 1986-96: Chairman of Friends of the Earth International 1996-present: Secretary-General of European Environmental Bureau (EEB), the largest federation of environmental citizens’ organizations in Europe, set up to improve, promote and monitor EU environmental policies Active in campaign for what became the Aarhus Convention, held Bureau’s seat for NGO representative since 2001

3. 14 June, 20163 EEB ROLE IN AARHUS  European Environmental Bureau (EEB): One of the Aarhus Convention’s leading organizations  The EEB works in the framework of the European ECO Forum, a coalition of more than 200 Environmental Citizens’ Organisations from the UNECE region, created in 1993 to follow up on the UN Environment for Europe process

4. 14 June, 20164 EEB ROLE IN AARHUS (ii)  Public Participation Campaign (PPC) with its campaign’s committee (PPCC) is the ECO Forum issue group that follows implementation of the Aarhus Convention  PPCC comprises nine members which are elected on the basis of geographic balance and being from a cross- section of NGOs  EEB is responsible for leadership of the above

5. 14 June, 20165 EEB ROLE IN AARHUS (iii) Main areas of activity:  Meaningful participation at official meetings (eight to ten per year)  General co-ordination of campaign  Issues specific work, supports national activities, encourages information exchange and fundraising  Recently focused on the 3 rd Meeting of Parties in Riga

6. 14 June, 20166 AARHUS CONVENTION: Role of NGOs 1995: Environmental NGOs key role in decision to draft the Convention, and intensively involved. From 1998 successful pressure for –Protocols on PRTRs, Strategic Environmental Decisionmaking, –GMO clarification, –open Compliance process –Almaty Guidelines

7. 14 June, 20167 AARHUS CONVENTION: Role of NGOs Instrumental in establishing process to clarify the obligation of Parties to promote Aarhus principles in international forums Continuing efforts made to reduce ambivalence of Convention pillars 2 & 3 Process to clarify and improve public participation requirements for plans, programmes, policies and legislation achieved in Riga 2008

8. 14 June, 20168 AARHUS CONVENTION: FROM INSPIRATION TO TEXT Aarhus is an important symbol, a challenge for authorities and a hope for the public A lot of work been done to motivate people, capacity building etc.

9. 14 June, 20169 NATIONAL IMPLEMENTATION REPORTS In Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Hungary, Moldova, Ukraine, NIR development began only after NGOs informed public authorities In Romania and Cyprus, text in English only In Greece, Georgia, Kazakhstan and Romania, NGO participation was limited Little time for NGOs to comment on draft NIR in Azerbaijan, Cyprus, France, Kazakhstan and Macedonia Final NIR text not distributed to stakeholders who took part in the reporting process in Bulgaria, Germany, Romania and the UK Public comments only reflected in final NIR texts for Estonia and Ukraine

10. 14 June, 201610 ACCESS TO INFORMATION Transposition general (except for some regions) Problems with regional and local authorities Concrete activities to promote the Convention (to officials and/or public) in Austria, Cyprus, Estonia, France, Germany, Poland, Slovenia, Sweden Registration of requests in Estonia, Slovenia, soon in Belgium – Denmark has a monitoring comittee (with NGO participation) Special mechanism to deal with refusals in Estonia, Hungary, Ireland, Portugal, Slovenia Courts are sluggish

11. 14 June, 201611 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION I Partial transposition (not in Ireland, Italy, Romania, or certain regions in other countries) Serious deficiencies incorporating directive into national law and practice, in many cases related to environmental assessment directive Often restrictions on “public concerned” to identify who can participate in environmental proceedings, for example by excluding informal groups In some countries, participation in early phases of decision-making not provided

12. 14 June, 201612 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION II High costs, little time, hardly any promotion of the opportunities for public participation Tendency to reduce public participation in Germany and the Netherlands Consideration of comments received through public participation process is considered a formality Overly limited right of standing when public participation rights are violated in several countries

13. 14 June, 201613 ACCESS TO JUSTICE The Directive is needed for Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Romania and Slovenia The Directive can also improve the situation in France, UK, Sweden and Poland But a badly designed Directive could be abused for reducing existing rights in Estonia, Hungary, Poland, Spain, Sweden and the Netherlands

14. 14 June, 201614 NON SATISFACTORY Do not have an effective system: Austria Germany Hungary Malta United Kingdom

15. 14 June, 201615 NEED TO IMPROVE Limited access to justice, restricted to specific issues, or to a reduced group of “interested persons”. Difficulties also with interim relief, or high costs without assistance provisions: BelgiumCyprus Czech RepublicFinland IrelandLatvia The NetherlandsPoland Spain Sweden

16. 14 June, 201616 SATISFACTORY Access for NGOs (depending on certain criteria) and members of the public with a certain interest (interpreted in a non-restrictive way) – interim relief, low costs or assistance in costs possible: Estonia France GreeceItaly LithuaniaLuxembourg PortugalSlovakia Slovenia

17. 14 June, 201617 GOOD The system includes wide standing rights; interim relief is simple and costs are low or non-existence. Assistance is effective and transparent: Denmark

18. 14 June, 201618 CONCLUSIONS ‘No’ to subsidiarity proposal ‘Yes’ to EU’s obligation to better protect environment and grant citizens right to justice in environmental field Directive on Access to Justice should be adopted without further delay by Council and Parliament