Guidance on Subregional Cooperation |
|
The third meeting of the Parties, held in Cavtat (Croatia), adopted decision III/5 on strengthening subregional cooperation. The decision and the guidance appended to that decision are presented below. The decision is also available within the report of that meeting, ECE/MP.EIA/6 
.
Decision III/5
Stengthening Subregional Cooperation
The Meeting,
Recalling its decision II/8 on strengthening
subregional cooperation,
Having considered the outcome of the
workshops on: the implementation of transboundary
environmental impact assessment (EIA) in the Balkan
and Black Sea regions; the application of the Convention
in Central and Eastern Europe; subregional cooperation
in South-Eastern Europe; and model bilateral and
multilateral agreements for South-Eastern Europe,
Recognizing that subregional cooperation
promotes the regular exchange of information within
the subregion and improves the practical application
of the Convention,
Recognizing also that bilateral and multilateral
agreements facilitate the effective implementation
of the Convention,
Wishing to encourage the development of
bilateral and multilateral agreements through subregional
cooperation under the Convention,
1. Endorses the Guidance on subregional
cooperation as appended to this decision;
2. Decides that activities on subregional
cooperation aimed in particular at capacity building
for the countries in Eastern Europe, the Caucasus
and Central Asia will be included in the work
plan;
3. Invites Parties and non-Parties to
host workshops or take other appropriate measures
to promote cooperation in their subregions;
4. Also invites Parties to nominate
lead countries on subregional cooperation where
appropriate and further invites these lead countries
to consider ways to coordinate their activities;
5. Suggests that Parties should provide
information to the Working Group on Environmental
Impact Assessment on activities to which the guidance
has been applied.
Appendix
GUIDANCE
ON SUBREGIONAL COOPERATION
Contents
Introduction
1. At their second meeting, held in Sofia from
26 to 27 February 2001, the Parties to the Convention
on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary
Context (Espoo Convention) adopted decision II/8
on strengthening subregional cooperation. Croatia
and Poland were the lead countries for this task.
2. The objective of this decision was to accelerate
the ratification and practical application of the
Convention as well as the development of bilateral
and multilateral agreements through strengthening
subregional cooperation. One of the measures considered
was to produce a guidance document that would, on
the one hand, summarize the experience gained so
far and, on the other, provide recommendations for
further action.
3. Subregional cooperation is not a new task in
the work plan, separate from bilateral and multilateral
cooperation or the practical application of the
Convention. On the contrary, all work and documents
produced in the past should be taken into account.
In this respect the reports on Guidance on the Practical
Application of the Espoo Convention (appended to
decision III/4), Bilateral and Multilateral Cooperation
in the Framework of the Espoo Convention (ECE/MP.EIA/4 ,
annex I) and Current Policies, Strategies and Aspects
of Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary
Context (ECE/CEP/9) were considered to avoid overlapping
and repetition.
4. The present guidance document is based on the
results of three workshops: on the implementation
of transboundary environmental impact assessment
(EIA) in the Balkan and Black Sea regions (April
2002, Sandanski, Bulgaria); on the application of
the Espoo Convention in Central and Eastern Europe
(June 2003, Szentendre, Hungary); and on transboundary
EIA in South-Eastern Europe (November 2003, Belgrade).
Practical experience in international cooperation,
the results of day-to-day contacts with the representatives
of neighbouring countries, unofficial meetings and
practical cases were kept in mind during the preparation
of this guidance.
5. Subregional cooperation is a vital element of
the implementation of the Espoo Convention. Moreover,
the sharing of views, practical experience and information
about procedures plays an important role in improving
national EIA practice.
6. While this document was prepared primarily for
the purpose of implementing the obligations of the
Parties to the Espoo Convention, it is worth noting
that the requirement to carry out a transboundary
EIA is also included in the amended text of the
European Union’s EIA directive, in accordance with
directive
97/11/EC 
.
7. It should be noted that, while this document
strives to present the experience gained so far,
it is not intended as a general guideline, but as
a working document to summarize work done so far
and suggest areas that need further action. Subregional
cooperation should remain a flexible tool, following
the needs identified. The purpose of this work is
to facilitate future choices of topics, avoid overlapping
with work already done and suggest topics that may
be investigated to help improve the implementation
of the Convention.
I. REQUIREMENTS
UNDER THE CONVENTION (OBLIGATIONS) [back
to contents]
8. The Convention requires a number of procedural
steps to be followed, as described in its Articles
3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 and illustrated in the flow chart
in document ECE/CEP/9.
9. Each of the stages should be prepared beforehand
and a plan of the entire procedure set out in advance
to safeguard the final results. National legislation
plays an important role, but details of the phases
of the procedure may be required in order to streamline
the transboundary procedure. Such details may take
the form of detailed policy documents or be arranged,
well in advance, case by case. Detailed issues to
be taken into account have been described in documents
ECE/CEP/9 and Guidance
on the Practical Application of the Espoo Convention.
10. The process of transboundary EIA may be initiated
by either of the Parties concerned, that is, the
Party of origin, which is the country where the
development is to take place, or the affected Party,
which is the country where the construction and
operation of the development may have an impact.
11. Notification is usually considered as the first
step to initiate the application of the Convention.
However, a number of formal or informal procedures
may be undertaken by one or both sides to the process
to prepare such a step, for instance (though not
necessarily in this order):
(a) Screening: decision on whether or not a given
development is to go through the transboundary
EIA procedure. This step has to be taken in order
to decide that contact with the other Party is
required. In most cases the list of activities
as included in the Convention or a bilateral agreement
is used. The definitions of some activities in
Appendix I to the Convention could be made more
precise based on practical experience through
bilateral or multilateral agreements. The definition
of “significance”, decisive to the issue of applying
the Convention, has been matter of concern. Guidance
on the term “significant” can be found in document
ECE/CEP/9 or can be given by national law or contained
in a bilateral agreement. Good cooperation between
the countries and an early exchange of information
about potential projects are crucial in this respect;
(b) Initial notification and confirmation of
participation: at this stage a minimum of institutional
arrangements is necessary to make the process
run smoothly, in particular where the countries
involved delegate responsibility to authorities
of different levels. Information regarding the
designation of the authorities that should take
part in these communications, the detailed arrangements
for translations and the time frames should be
exchanged between the Parties. The stage at which
this information exchange may occur is also important
and, while all Parties agree that it should take
place as early as possible, often the authorities
become aware of a proposed development only when
the siting procedure, including national EIA,
is initiated. It has to be taken into account
that the initiation of a national procedures usually
involves the initiation of an administrative procedure,
which has to be completed within a certain period,
often not allowing for the additional time required
for a transboundary procedure (needed for the
exchange of information, internal consultations
within the affected country, translation, etc.);
(c) Transmittal of information concerning the
potentially affected environment in the affected
Party: this information should be made available
at the request of the Party of origin, to be used
in the preparation of an EIA. The procedural and
timing issues mentioned above apply also in this
case;
(d) Public participation: the Convention requires
that the public of the affected Party should be
given an opportunity equivalent to that given
to the public of the Party of origin to take part
in the procedure. An issue that needs further
investigation is the possibility of appeal in
a transboundary procedure. At present, for procedural
reasons, appeals by foreign citizens and residents
are very restricted. Where both the scope and
the timing of the involvement of the public differs
between the countries, the problem of reciprocity
and equivalence needs particular attention in
bilateral agreements;
(e) Preparation of the EIA documentation and
its distribution: documentation prepared in a
transboundary procedure must cover as a minimum
the items listed in Appendix II to the Convention.
The documentation has then to be distributed in
accordance with the requirements of the national
legislation and be provided for comments to the
authorities and the public of the affected Party.
The way in which translation of the documentation,
its distribution and resulting information flow
is arranged between the Parties concerned directly
influences the effectiveness of the whole process;
(f) Consultation between Parties: in order to
provide a smooth information flow given the differences
in requirements and cultural traditions concerning
decision-making and public participation, it is
considered useful to agree beforehand on which
authorities, organizations and agencies should
participate in the consultations, who will be
responsible for managing the consultation rounds
and what will be the time frames;
(g) Decision and transmittal of final decision:
the final decision is in each case taken by the
authority of the Party of origin, which has an
obligation to communicate this decision and its
justification to the affected Party;
(h) Post-project analysis: in some national EIA
systems post-project analysis is not mandatory
and the Parties concerned may have different views
on the need for it. Arrangements for a post-project
analysis may be part of an overall plan for a
transboundary procedure or may be decided only
at the very end.
12. Given that different countries have different
administrative procedures and EIA provisions, the
steps set out in the Convention may be used to compare
their national procedures, in order to clarify similarities
and divergences.
13. The legal basis for bilateral or multilateral
agreements and arrangements is set out in Article
8 of the Convention, which encourages Parties to
use existing as well as set up new agreements in
order to comply with their obligations under the
Convention.
14. Elements of such agreements or arrangements
are proposed in Appendix VI to the Convention. They
include:
- Institutional, administrative and other arrangements
in each of the States;
- Harmonization of policies and measures and
standards of environmental protection;
- Methods of identification, measurement, prediction
and assessment of impacts and of post-project
analysis;
- Methods and programmes for the collection, analysis,
storage and dissemination of comparable data regarding
environmental quality;
- Establishment of threshold levels and specified
criteria for defining significance of transboundary
impacts;
- Joint assessment, monitoring programmes, intercalibration
of monitoring devices and harmonization of methodologies;
- Procedural aspects such as: how to involve
the public of the affected Party; submission of
comments; public hearings and consultations between
the Parties (participants, subjects); decision
(how to reflect comments of the authorities and
the public, publication, possibilities of appeal);
post-project analysis; dispute prevention and
settlement; joint EIA; translation; financial
aspects.
15. The minimum information which should be prepared
and communicated to other Parties for an effective
application of the Convention includes (ECE/CEP/9):
- The authorities responsible for EIA;
- The authorities that will be involved at the
various stages of the EIA process (with an indication
of who does what);
- A flow chart describing the various stages and
time frames of the national EIA process.
16. It is also considered useful to have:
(a) Regular meetings of experts (possibly as
a joint expert group) to discuss the current status
and envisaged changes in legislation and procedures;
such a solution helps to set up a working relationship
and facilitates future work under tight deadlines;
(b) Access to environmental information, including
environmental standards, background pollution
levels and the location of protected areas.
17. Timing remains a controversial factor: for
while the Party of origin is bound by the timing
of its administrative procedures and has to satisfy
the right of the developer to receive an answer
to its application in due time, the affected Party
should have enough time to consult its authorities
and allow for public participation. Timing of decision-making
may also affect the right of the public of the affected
Party to appeal.
18. Translation of the documents is also an important
issue. In this case the criteria involved include
costs, timing and quality. Although most of the
documents are provided by the Party of origin for
the information of the affected Party, the information
flow is in both directions. It may also be worthwhile
providing two streams of communication: such as
direct communications between the authorities involved,
which may use a commonly understood language, and
communication with the public, which definitely
has to be translated. Additional problems may arise
in areas where important ethnic or language minorities
use a language that is different from the official
language of the country and the language used by
the administration.
II. DIVERSE PARTIES
[back to contents]
19. Of the 55 UNECE member countries, 39 are Parties
to the Espoo Convention (together with the European
Community). The diversity of the region is reflected
amongst the Parties (size, population size, population
density). This diversity also applies to their administrative
and legislative systems, the number and type of
new developments planned and the practice of public
participation — which are factors directly influencing
EIA procedures.
20. It should be noted that countries that are
not a Party may also use the Convention as a reference
point for international agreements on transboundary
EIA. Experience gained from such cases should also
be reported, whenever possible, as it may enrich
the practice of transboundary assessment.
21. In order to facilitate the exchange and cross—fertilization
of ideas on practical experience and procedural
solutions adopted in such a diverse region, countries
may be grouped into more uniform subregions, with
common traits. The subregions within UNECE may be
delineated according to a number of criteria and
no definite and stable division is possible. A possible
but by no means exhaustive list of criteria for
the creation of subregions would involve:
(a) Geography: countries located in the same
geographical region, such as the Balkans, Scandinavia,
etc., or neighbouring countries;
(b) History: countries with a common history
that may influence the administrative system and
procedural practice, or countries that have suffered
the ravages of war or natural disaster (such as
extensive floods) and will now face an intensive
reconstruction period;
(c) Language: for either ethnic or historical
reasons a number of countries in the region are
able to communicate in a single language or use
a language understood by the neighbouring country.
This may facilitate the exchange of information,
including direct access to legislation, manuals
and procedural guidelines, and simplify public
participation in transboundary EIA procedures;
(d) Economic development: this may relate to
the general level of economic development or to
a particular issue — for example, the construction
of transboundary infrastructure such as a road,
railway or pipeline, or a project serving more
than one country (e.g. energy plant or airport).
Note that a clear difference in the economic levels
of two countries involved in a transboundary EIA
procedure may influence the level of public participation
if the cost of either travel or materials is much
higher, in terms of purchasing power, in one of
the countries;
(e) Politics: in many countries of the region
changes in legislation and resulting changes in
practice are driven by a common political force.
This is true for countries members of the European
Union and also for the accession countries, where
very dynamic legislative changes have taken place
during the past decade. For their neighbours the
dynamics of the change are a challenge in the
setting-up of a stable bilateral procedure concerning
transboundary impacts. Political borders may also
pose additional problems to public participation,
in particular when visas are required;
(f) Administrative organization: the administrative
competences of different bodies, such as the division
of competences in federal States or the statutory
consultees required to comment on an EIA or associated
documents or licensing of experts to perform EIA,
also influence transboundary procedures;
(g) Convention's status: although the Convention
may well be applied by countries that are not
Parties, it imposes certain obligations upon those
that are Parties. A specific situation arises
in the case of countries whose neighbours are
willing to cooperate on a case-by-case basis but
are not Parties to the Convention. Although not
directly linked with the status of the Espoo Convention,
but possibly influencing practice and procedure,
is the status of other environmental conventions
as well as other international obligations in
the country and neighbouring States.
22. The list of criteria may be both extended and
elaborated. However, even the criteria shown above
demonstrate that the term “subregional” within the
UNECE context may mean a number of possible combinations,
by no means limited to geography.
23. The sharing of problems and solutions may within
the country groups (or subregions) help to establish
and implement good practice in transboundary EIA.
III. LESSONS LEARNED
A. Workshops
[back to contents]
1. Workshop in Sandanski
24. The workshop on the implementation of transboundary
EIA in the Balkan and Black Sea regions was held
on 11 April 2002 in Sandanski, as a follow-up to
the subregional workshop that had been organized
in Varna, Bulgaria, on 26-27 April 1999. The workshop
aimed at discussing practical cases of transboundary
EIA in the region, and of bilateral or multilateral
EIA agreements as examples of good practice among
neighbouring countries in the Balkan and Black Sea
regions, and at analysing the practical information
presented by the countries and their needs.
25. While in some countries of the Balkan and Black
Sea regions there was no practical experience with
transboundary EIA, it was stressed that some projects,
initiated and supported through international financing
institutions, were implementing provisions of the
Espoo Convention. It was also emphasized that the
financing of large-scale projects in the countries
in transition by international financial institutions
led to the question of who the “proponent” was and
who had to start the EIA procedure?
26. It was pointed out that in the region of the
Balkans and the Black Sea, knowledge of Russian
was a factor that could facilitate cooperation,
as translation was not an issue.
27. The results of a project developed under the
Greek-Bulgarian environmental cooperation was considered
to be an interesting example of cooperation between
the countries to strengthen the implementation of
the Convention. The Centre for European Constitutional
Law (Greece) and the NGO “Wilderness Fund” (Bulgaria)
coordinated the project. As a result of the research
on transboundary EIA and its implementation in both
countries, some conclusions and proposals for concluding
bilateral EIA agreements and establishing joint
EIA committees had been drawn up.
28. During the workshop it was concluded that some
of the recommendations from the first subregional
workshop (ECE/MP.EIA/4 ,
annex VIII) were too ambitious and that this might
be the reason for the slow progress in implementing
them. While supporting the content of the recommendations,
the participants suggested that the actions to be
taken might be broken up into smaller, more feasible,
ones.
29. Many of the countries in the region did not
have practical experience in the implementation
of EIA in a transboundary context, but they continued
to strengthen their knowledge on how to implement
the Convention. There were countries in the region
without a national EIA system, but some of them
had ratified the Convention and as a Party they
could implement its requirements directly.
30. Countries with a federal structure might have
difficulties with the application of the Espoo Convention,
because of the lack of a clear division of responsibility
between the different levels of administration.
31. Transboundary infrastructure projects were
common in the countries in transition in the Balkan
and Black Sea regions. They required a joint EIA,
joint working groups for the preparation of the
EIA documentation and a joint working group for
the procedural aspects.
32. Non-governmental organizations and academic
and research institutions could further support
the implementation of the Convention by holding
meetings with the authorities and by encouraging
them to take adequate action to share their scientific
work and experience.
33. The knowledge and the environmental awareness
of courts and civil servants should be improved
to avoid delays and to allow for appeals in a transboundary
context.
34. The transposition and harmonization of EU environmental
legislation were considered to be helpful in the
implementation of EIA in a transboundary context.
35. The participants stressed the importance of
convening further subregional workshops under the
work plan of the Convention.
2. Workshop in Szentendre
36. The workshop on the application of the Espoo
Convention in Central and Eastern Europe was held
on 23-24 June 2003 in Szentendre. The aim was to
discuss practical cases of transboundary EIA in
the region and progress in the preparation of bilateral
or multilateral EIA agreements, and to share information
about national legal systems.
37. The participants broadened their knowledge
about national EIA system in other countries, their
similarities and differences, and shared information
to establish common ground for further negotiation.
They exchanged practical experience gained from
case studies and from negotiations. For the countries
in the region that did not have practical experience
with the implementation of EIA in a transboundary
context, such workshops, where a small number of
participants could discuss in detail the cases presented
and share their experience and problems, were very
useful.
38. It was concluded that it was much easier to
have practical cases of transboundary EIA before
the start of the negotiation of a bilateral agreement.
It was very important to establish common ground
with the neighbouring countries. The more similar
the national systems, the more general agreement.
39. Parties should improve communication between
them. It was advisable to keep in touch before the
important stages of the procedure, such as public
participation, distribution of EIA documentation
and issuing the final decision.
40. Clearly defined timing of the stages of the
EIA procedure on both sides of the border facilitated
the process.
41. It was important to have compatible definitions,
methods and standards. Different understandings
might cause problems during joint projects.
3. Workshop in Belgrade
42. A workshop on transboundary EIA in South-Eastern
Europe was held on 6-7 November 2003 in Belgrade.
The aim was to improve cooperation in transboundary
EIA in South-Eastern Europe and to exchange experiences
on national legislation on EIA, with the discussion
on practical cases from the participant countries.
43. The workshop concluded that it was necessary
to establish an expert group comprising the participants
from South-Eastern Europe in order to prepare elements
for bilateral and multilateral agreements, further
defining the provisions of the Espoo Convention,
including provisions for the language of communication,
notification and translation of documentation.
44. This expert group was expected to meet at regular
intervals, the first time in March or April 2004.
The secretariat was requested to prepare a first
draft of these elements for consideration at this
meeting. The expert group was requested to report
at regular intervals to the Working Group on EIA
on its progress.
45. The workshop asked the Working Group on EIA
to include this activity in the draft work plan
under the Convention, for adoption at the third
meeting of the Parties. The workshop requested the
Working Group on EIA to look into possibilities
for funding this activity.
46. The workshop requested the above-mentioned
expert group also to compare lists of activities
subject to national EIA and prepare additional criteria
for the further identification of proposed activities
subject to transboundary EIA.
47. The workshop also requested the expert group
to prepare criteria for the definition of “significance”,
taking into account the specific requirements of
the subregion.
48. The workshop recognized that data related to
the environment were not well developed in the subregion.
It therefore suggested that environmental data should
be further developed and made available. This could
be done, for example, during the preparation of
the EIA documentation. It was also suggested that
the appropriate international data collection programmes
should be used.
49. The workshop recalled Article 3, paragraph
6, of the Convention, which indicates that the affected
Party should provide reasonably available data on
the affected environment in its jurisdiction. When
such information is not available, it would be the
responsibility of the proponent to undertake the
relevant research or data collection.
50. The workshop emphasized the need for the countries
in this subregion to share experiences and information
on completed procedures by collecting case studies
of the implementation of the Convention. The workshop
requests the Working Group on EIA to consider this
need when drafting the work plan.
B. Case studies
[back to contents]
1. German-Polish case on transboundary EIA
51. The subject of the first case of Polish-German
cooperation on transboundary EIA was the diversion
of water from the border river Nysa to the German
river Spree and to an opencast mine in Berzdorf,
Germany.
52. The EIA procedures took almost two years (22
months) from the notification to the final decision.
The most problematic aspect was the public participation,
which took place from December 2000 to June 2001.
There was no direct communication between the public
of the affected Party and the Party of origin. The
Polish Ministry of the Environment acted as an intermediary
and sent the comments in aggregated form. The Minister
of the Environment's statement also included statements
by other interested authorities. This was recognized
to be an inefficient way of communicating.
53. It took Poland more than a month to confirm
that it would participate in the transboundary EIA.
The initial notification sent by Germany had set
a one-month deadline. However, it was the first
case — there were no precedents.
54. The second problem arose in connection with
the consultations in accordance with Article 5 of
the Espoo Convention. Germany considered that additional
negotiations initiated by the German-Polish Transboundary
Water Commission already fulfilled the requirements
of the Convention. Consultations as required under
the Convention were held after the final decision
was made, because Poland was not satisfied with
it.
55. The Polish authorities and public were hostile
to the project. The Polish Minister of the Environment
asked the German Federal Environment Minister for
negotiations (based on Art. 15 — Settlement of disputes).
In the view of Poland, Germany did not take into
account the Polish complaints. In the view of Germany,
the competent authority for EIA did consider the
Polish complaints and took them into account in
the final decision. Although an appeal against the
decision in a German court is possible, no Polish
citizens chose this procedure. To lodge an appeal,
it has to be proved that the rights of foreign citizens
have been violated and the appeal has to be lodged
within one month from the time that the decision
has been delivered or made available to the public.
Individuals as well as companies expected a guarantee
of compensation for their losses, but this was not
put in the final decision. In the view of Germany,
the question of liability for potential damage to
individuals or companies is not part of EIA. There
are sufficient provisions on liability in German
domestic civil law. It seems that the dispute can
be resolved.
56. Both countries were “learning by doing” and
there was some misunderstanding. The public did
not seem to be clearly informed about the procedure,
including the rights of appeal, even if the decision
included translated information on this. But the
decision was translated only partially. Procedural
delays were caused by the incompatibility of the
EIA procedures. The final decision was made without
proper consultations (see para. 49 above). Later,
negotiations were carried out on the national level.
57. Problems were caused by the lack of a binding
German-Polish bilateral agreement. It is important
to set the procedural relationship between authorities,
and to define their competences and the deadlines
of the procedural stages.
2. Bulgarian-Romanian case on transboundary
EIA
58. The Romanian and Bulgarian Foreign Ministers
signed an agreement to construct a bridge over the
Danube. Its environmental impact had to be assessed.
The agreement did not mention the Espoo Convention,
although both countries are Parties to it. The bridge
that will connect the two countries is transboundary.
The case was initiated via the international agreement
between the Governments. The developer is Bulgaria,
although Bulgaria and Romania will operate half
of the bridge each. The environmental impact is
also assessed jointly.
59. Bulgaria has a one-step EIA procedure at the
beginning of the permitting process, whereas Romania
has EIA in the final stage. The transboundary EIA
took place in two stages: preliminary EIA according
to the Bulgarian procedure and final EIA according
to Romanian legislation.
60. Only the bridge was subject to EIA, since the
railways and roads on both sides were already in
place. The bridge with the road is 5 km long. The
project is important for the transport infrastructure
in both countries, part of the southern branch of
the pan-European network. In May 2000 both countries
signed the agreement on the project’s technical,
financial, legal and organizational aspects. The
location of the bridge was decided by the international
agreement. It was based on a detailed study conducted
in the 1990s. The preliminary study was similar
to a strategic environmental assessment (SEA). The
final conclusion was based not only on the environmental
assessment but also on economic and social considerations.
61. There was the question of which country was
the Party of origin. In this case both countries
co-owned the initiative and both were at the same
time affected Parties and Parties of origin. The
Joint Committee and working groups were established.
One working group dealt with environmental matters.
The Transport Ministers of both countries chaired
the Joint Committee. The Environment Ministries
were represented on it.
62. During the transboundary EIA many meetings
were organized to clarify the procedures in both
countries. The notification stage was skipped. The
screening process was not clear, since the project
fell under EIA procedures in both countries. The
experts had to organize meetings in both countries
with the public concerned and NGOs. The joint team
drew up the EIA documentation. Only licensed experts
were used. Consultations were organized in both
countries.
63. During the public participation procedure,
nobody objected to the bridge. NGOs had no objections
either. Comments were received on mitigation and
other improvements.
64. The project is currently in the stage of the
final EIA as the environmental issues were straightforward.
Construction is expected to start in 2005.
3. Estonian-Finnish case on transboundary EIA
65. The Ministry of the Environment in Estonia
initiated the case for the Narva Power Plant. The
Ministry was also decision maker and supervisor
as the Party of origin. Tallinn Pedagogical University,
the Institute of Ecology and experts formed an EIA
expert team for the project.
66. A notification was sent to Finland and the Russian
Federation. The latter did not respond, and further
information was exchanged between Estonia and Finland
only. Public participation in the draft EIA programme
took the form of a public hearing in Estonia. Comments
from the Ministry of the Environment of Finland
were received and taken into account by the developer,
who followed up the preparation of the EIA report.
The final EIA had to be approved by the Ministry
of the Environment of the Party of origin. The amended
report was sent to Finland.
67. All communication with Finland took place in
English. The notification was sent to Finland. After
Finland’s confirmation of its participation in the
EIA procedure, the draft EIA documentation was sent.
Comments from Finland were received before the public
hearing in Estonia. Communication with the affected
Party was greatly improved because of the informal
contacts and electronic communication tools used.
The amended EIA documentation was also sent to the
affected Party.
68. The case was difficult because the deadlines
were very tight. Finland did not have enough time
(one month) to hold public hearings. Only the summary
of the EIA report was translated into English, which
meant that Finland did not get sufficient information.
4. Croatian-Italian case on transboundary EIA
69. The subject of the Croatian-Italian cooperation
on transboundary EIA was a joint project concerning
sea-lines for hydrocarbon transfer.
70. Both countries were at the same time Party
of origin and affected Party. The Joint Body, established
in October 1998 and representing both governments,
conducted the transboundary EIA procedure. Both
countries were interested in developing the project.
71. The Italian and Croatian publics were informed
at a very early stage of the procedure. Each country
informed its own public according to its national
rules.
72. The whole procedure of EIA in a transboundary
context took six months.
5. Croatian-Hungarian case on transboundary
EIA
[Note: The description of this
case study was based on information provided by
the Party of origin (Croatia), as well as on information
contained in the description of case study number
3 in Appendix 3 to Annex VIII to the report of the
third meeting of the Parties, ECE/MP.EIA/6.]
73. The subject of the first Croatian-Hungarian
case on transboundary EIA was the Novo Virje Multipurpose
Hydropower System in Croatia. The proponent was
the public company “Hrvatska elektroprivreda” of
Croatia.
74. The national EIA procedure in Croatia started
in July 1994 and it ended in February 2000. The
procedure in a transboundary context started in
January 2001, when Croatia notified Hungary; there
is no final decision as yet. The points of contact
of each country coordinated jointly the EIA procedure
according to the Espoo Convention. Public hearings
took place in accordance with national legislation.
The Croatian delegation took part in a public hearing
in Hungary. The Hungarian authorities and public
were hostile to the project.
75. The information obtained from the Party of
origin was not considered satisfactory by the affected
Party, because of insufficient information about
the likely impacts on the territory of the affected
Party and its reasons. The documentation of the
Party of origin contained more than 10 000 pages.
At the request of the affected Party, supplementary
material was prepared (about 300 pages in English),
and was sent to the affected Party in April 2003.
It was difficult to maintain public interest during
such a long process. The affected public did not
show much interest in providing information and
sending remarks in written form. In the Party of
origin the decision-making procedure was conducted
for more than ten years and the Party of origin
has not yet released the final decision, pending
the completion of the transboundary procedure.
76. The Party of origin put forward a proposal
on how to continue the work and proposed an expert
meeting to agree on an efficient implementation
of the Espoo Convention’s procedures, on the extent
of supplementary investigations and on the definition
of criteria for impact “significance” on the territory
of the affected Party. The affected Party rejected
this proposal and declined the invitation to the
expert meeting. The Party of origin tried to meet
all the requests made by the Hungarian party during
the transboundary EIA procedure.
C. Conclusions
and recommendations from the case studies
[back to contents]
77. The affected Party should be notified as soon
as possible and be given more time to comment (e.g.
two months). However, national administrative procedures
that set deadlines for decision-making rarely make
allowances for such extended transboundary procedures.
78. It is useful to define in bilateral agreements
what should be translated so that there are no doubts
about who is responsible for producing and paying
for translations. Ideally, all EIA documentation
should be translated, but in practice more funding
as well as more time are needed.
79. The thresholds for activities not clearly defined
in Appendix I to the Convention can be negotiated
if they differ in the two countries that are negotiating
the bilateral agreement on EIA. Countries may agree
to take into account each other’s thresholds.
80. The Parties may interpret some provisions of
the Convention in different ways in view of their
national law and practice.
81. It is important to establish a procedural relationship
between the authorities, to define their competences
and to set deadlines for the procedural stages.
82. Established bilateral agreements speed up the
transboundary EIA process; such agreements are especially
required if the administrative systems and procedures
differ in the countries involved.
83. For joint infrastructure projects it is difficult
or nearly impossible to identify the affected Party
and the Party of origin.
84. The experience gained during the construction
of joint infrastructure projects by two or more
Parties may be very helpful in applying for funding
by structural funds programmes.
D. Conclusions
and recommendations [back
to contents]
85. Practical experience with transboundary procedures
under the Convention is still limited but growing.
However, not all cases are publicly available for
reference. It would be worthwhile intensifying efforts
to disseminate such information and experience.
Workshops, seminars, training courses and expert-exchange
programmes help to spread information about current
EIA practices and to develop a network to strengthen
the Convention’s implementation.
86. When organizing workshops and meetings, the
practical arrangements and logistics should be carefully
considered. Distances between countries are still
considerable and fares may deter potential participants.
EIA is a tool that is increasingly popular and a
number of international events dedicated to this
topic are organized each year. The calendar of such
events should be considered when planning workshops
and meetings to prevent them coinciding. Advantage
may be taken of events that are attended by numerous
participants by organizing meetings back to back,
thus limiting travel time and fares.
87. Experience shows that the application of the
Espoo Convention often involves issues that are
regulated by or relevant to other UNECE environmental
conventions or international agreements. It is,
consequently, advisable that the focal points for
the different conventions or international agreements
should be made aware of each other’s existence and
exchange information on procedures, timing and competences.
This would help in future to streamline the process
and avoid misunderstandings and overlap.
88. The possibility of using a common language
is a considerable advantage when sharing experience
and information — both written and spoken. However,
it poses a risk of restricting the exchange of information
to the subregion of a given language and may result
in limiting contacts with other groups or subregions.
It is, therefore, useful to set up an international
exchange system for information on documents, events
and practice, which should be accessible to countries
from outside the subregion.
89. During recent years the Internet has become
accepted as a tool for effective and cost-efficient
long-distance communication. Full advantage should
be taken of it, wherever possible, to save time,
travel costs and printing costs. However, it should
not be the sole means of communication.
90. The points of contact are crucial for an effective
exchange of information, as they are the institutions
to which the notification has to be sent. The contact
points may assume other responsibilities and functions,
such as those of focal points, depending on the
agreements between the Parties concerned and on
the legal and administrative systems on both sides
of the border. Possible functions of the points
of contact include:
(a) Initiating function: the contact point is
responsible for the first formal contact, initiating
the transboundary procedure; all further working
relations take place directly between the authorities
involved (a contact list of authorities is usually
submitted by the contact point as part of the
initiation procedure);
(b) Mail-box function: the contact point acts
as an intermediary in the information flow, and
receives information and transmits it to the designated
authorities and transmits their comments back.
This is useful when the Parties are not familiar
with each other’s administrative systems and division
of competences; on the other hand, it slightly
lengthens the procedure;
(c) Coordinating function: the contact point
distributes information and collects comments
and reactions, thus acting as one of the partners
in the process. This is considered effective if
there are many comments to process (e.g. a number
of statutory consultees or the general public).
91. Practical experience to date demonstrates that
there are a number of possible approaches to bilateral
and multilateral agreements. They each have advantages
and limitations, and are briefly discussed below:
(a) Case-by-case approach: the procedure is set
out as the need to carry out a transboundary EIA
arises. In some countries transboundary assessments
had to be dealt with before any formal agreement
was made. In such cases the practical experience
gained influences the contents of the final agreement;
(b) Political agreement: this option may prove
the quickest to achieve. It requires all Parties
involved to show the political will to cooperate.
The Convention may be referred to as a basis for
action or as a reference document (in particular
where one of the signatories to the agreement
is not a Party to the Convention). As a rule no
detailed provisions are contained in such an agreement:
it may either be a simple declaration of political
will or set out the responsible agencies or administrative
bodies in each of the countries. Details are then
worked out case by case and based on practical
experience. The agreement provides a mandate for
the administrative bodies to undertake a transboundary
procedure;
(c) Joint committee: the countries involved draw
up rules of procedure for the processing of a
transboundary EIA and in particular agree to set
up a joint committee, usually made up of members
of administrative bodies and agencies as well
as designated experts (in some cases experts are
designated case by case). The composition of the
joint committee and its rules of procedure are
set out in the agreement while detailed solutions
are to be adopted by the committee itself, case
by case. This allows a transboundary procedure,
when it emerges, to proceed without undue delay.
It also helps those involved to “learn by doing”
and to improve as they gain experience;
(d) Detailed agreement: the countries involved
decide to prepare a detailed agreement setting
out all the elements of the transboundary EIA
procedure and delegate all responsibilities to
agencies within the countries. This solution,
while providing the most detailed guidance, is
also the most time-consuming as all possibilities
have to be provided for. Practical experience
shows that considerable time and effort are required
to negotiate such detailed agreements (more than
ten years in some cases). The dynamics of the
recent changes in legislation and procedures in
the region seriously impair the setting-up of
a detailed but inflexible procedure.
92. The choice of agreement will depend on many
factors and a country may decide to have different
types of arrangements with different neighbours.
93. Bilateral agreements are not a prerequisite
for implementing the Convention. Parties may choose
to implement its provisions directly.
94. Experience gained so far has yielded basic
information about national EIA systems, including
simple flow charts and the designation of the authorities
involved, including those relevant for public participation.
Such information may be considered as the minimum
information to be provided. It may be prepared in
advance and updated as needed by all countries,
as material for their own public and as materials
to be provided to the authorities and the public
of the affected Party (after translation). Such
documents may be made available to all concerned
or interested, for instance on a designated web
page.
95. During the initial stages of EIA, often at
the screening stages of a transboundary procedure,
a need emerges for up-to-date information about
the state of the environment in the potentially
affected Party. Therefore, it seems useful that,
where such information exists in an electronic format,
countries make available (e.g. on a web page) information
such as: the location of protected areas (including
designated NATURA2000 sites); ecological corridors;
and designated land use (as stated in land-use plans
where applicable).
96. Transboundary activities (such as a bridge
or a road) are not explicitly covered by Appendix
I to the Convention, but it is understood that they
should be dealt with as infrastructure projects
with transboundary impacts.
97. Transport or infrastructure projects are potentially
a good opportunity to compare national environmental
standards. They also necessitate a certain degree
of harmonization of procedures. This is possible
only if some mechanism for the exchange of information
on the existing national legal systems and procedures
is established, and if the systems and standards
of neighbouring countries are taken into account
in the decision-making process. The Convention plays
an important role as a reference document for regional
and subregional cooperation, in particular in facilitating
the creation of a coherent EIA report or reports
covering the entire project.
98. An area that needs further investigation is
large international projects. They should be investigated
both at the stage of policy, plan and programme
and also as large-scale, often transboundary, projects
(as in the case of infrastructure developments such
as roads, railways and pipelines). International
funding institutions should be encouraged to request
the application of a transboundary EIA procedure.
99. An area of further investigation might be
the ‘tiering’ of projects to allow for full coverage
and minimum overlap between SEA and EIA in a transboundary
context. The level of detail to be considered in
a transboundary SEA and EIA should be coordinated.
[back to contents]