Republic of Moldova

1

Jan Darpö Chair of the Task Force on Access to Justice under the Aarhus Convention Contacts: e-mail [email protected] *******

2021-02-28

This document is a report by Professor Jan Darpö, Uppsala Universitet, the Chair of the Task Force on Access to Justice under the Aarhus Convention. Viewpoints expressed in the report belong to the author; the same can be said about shortcomings and errors in the text, the responsibility rests solely on him.

Access to Justice in Information Cases Table of contents

1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................... 2

1.1 The study and the synthesis report ......................................................................................................... 2 1.2 Article 9.1 of the Aarhus Convention in text and practice ....................................................................... 4

Article 9.1 first sentence ............................................................................................................................................. 4 Article 9.1 second sentence ........................................................................................................................................ 6 Article 9.1 third sentence ........................................................................................................................................... 8

2. QUESTIONS CONCERNING ACCESS TO JUSTICE IN CASES ON THE RIGHT TO ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION: ........................... 9 3. REMARKS AND DISCUSSION .................................................................................................................................. 17

Introduction .............................................................................................................................................................. 17 Unproblematic issues ............................................................................................................................................... 17 Barriers and challenges ............................................................................................................................................ 18 Good examples and interesting features in the studied Parties ............................................................................... 19

CONCLUDING REMARKS .......................................................................................................................................... 20

2

1. Introduction

1.1 The study and the synthesis report The Task Force on Access to Justice has a role to play as a platform for studies and meetings where all aspects of the third pillar of the Aarhus Convention can be discussed. This role as a mere facilitator for a wider debate without any formal significance is in fact the strength of this body under the Convention. Under those terms, the Task Force was mandated by the sixth session of the Meeting of the Parties to the Aarhus Convention in Budva (Montenegro) in 2017 to launch a study concerning access to justice in information cases according to Arti- cles 4, 9.1 and 9.4 of the Convention. Thus, the study deals with procedural issues concerning requests for environmental information and the possibilities open for members of the public to have the decision-making of the authorities and other public bodies holding such information challenged by way of administrative appeal and judicial review in a court of law. The relevant sections of Article 4 are the following (emphasis added):

1. Each Party shall ensure that, subject to the following paragraphs of this article, public authorities, in response to a request for environmental information, make such infor- mation available to the public, within the framework of national legislation, including, where requested and subject to subparagraph (b) below, copies of the actual documenta- tion containing or comprising such information:

(a) Without an interest having to be stated;

(b) In the form requested unless:

(i) It is reasonable for the public authority to make it available in another form, in which case reasons shall be given for making it available in that form; or

(ii) The information is already publicly available in another form.

2. The environmental information referred to in paragraph 1 above shall be made availa- ble as soon as possible and at the latest within one month after the request has been sub- mitted, unless the volume and the complexity of the information justify an extension of this period up to two months after the request. The applicant shall be informed of any ex- tension and of the reasons justifying it.

3. (…)

4. (…)

5. Where a public authority does not hold the environmental information requested, this public authority shall, as promptly as possible, inform the applicant of the public authori- ty to which it believes it is possible to apply for the information requested or transfer the request to that authority and inform the applicant accordingly.

6. (…)

7. A refusal of a request shall be in writing if the request was in writing or the applicant so requests. A refusal shall state the reasons for the refusal and give information on ac- cess to the review procedure provided for in accordance with article 9. The refusal shall be made as soon as possible and at the latest within one month, unless the complexity of

3

the information justifies an extension of this period up to two months after the request. The applicant shall be informed of any extension and of the reasons justifying it.

8. Each Party may allow its public authorities to make a charge for supplying information, but such charge shall not exceed a reasonable amount. Public authorities intending to make such a charge for supplying information shall make available to applicants a sched- ule of charges which may be levied, indicating the circumstances in which they may be levied or waived and when the supply of information is conditional on the advance pay- ment of such a charge.

Article 9.1 states as follows (emphasis added):

1. Each Party shall, within the framework of its national legislation, ensure that any per- son who considers that his or her request for information under article 4 has been ignored, wrongfully refused, whether in part or in full, inadequately answered, or otherwise not dealt with in accordance with the provisions of that article, has access to a review proce- dure before a court of law or another independent and impartial body established by law.

In the circumstances where a Party provides for such a review by a court of law, it shall ensure that such a person also has access to an expeditious procedure established by law that is free of charge or inexpensive for reconsideration by a public authority or review by an independent and impartial body other than a court of law.

Final decisions under this paragraph 1 shall be binding on the public authority holding the information. Reasons shall be stated in writing, at least where access to information is re- fused under this paragraph.

Further, Article 9.4 puts additional requirements on the access to justice possibilities under Article 9.1, namely (emphasis added):

4. In addition and without prejudice to paragraph 1 above, the procedures referred to in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 above shall provide adequate and effective remedies, including in- junctive relief as appropriate, and be fair, equitable, timely and not prohibitively expen- sive. Decisions under this article shall be given or recorded in writing. Decisions of courts, and whenever possible of other bodies, shall be publicly accessible.

For this study, a draft questionnaire was discussed by the Task Force on its 11th meeting in Geneva in February 2018. The questionnaire deals with procedural matters concerning re- quests for and review of environmental information relating to both Article 4 and Article 9.1. After the 11th meeting of the Task Force, the questionnaire was concluded and distributed by the secretariat to a number of key institutions, experts and non-governmental organizations from 13 Parties to the Convention in the spring of 2018 as suggested by their national focal points. The aim was to cover a limited number of Parties, representing the different Parties and sub-regions, including: (a) the European Union (EU) together with six of its Member States, namely Germany (DE), Ireland (IE), Portugal (PT), Slovakia (SK), Malta (MT), and Sweden (SE); (b) Switzerland (CH); (c) Serbia (RS) and Montenegro (ME) from South- Eastern Europe; (d) the Republic of Moldova (MD) from Eastern Europe; (e) Georgia (GE) from the Caucasus and (f) Kazakhstan (KZ) from Central Asia. The institutions which were addressed included relevant ministries, administrative authorities, specialized bodies such as the Parliamentary Ombudsman and Information Commissioner, national courts, public stake- holders and their organisations (ENGOs) and academia. During the fall of 2018, we received

4

completed questionnaires from 12 out of the 13 Parties.1 Of course, the responses vary in cov- erage and quality. This is mainly due to the number of responses from each Party, ranging from 4 (SE), 3 (IE, RS and SK), 2 (EU, GE, KZ and PT) and down to 1 (DE, MD, ME and CH). The quality of the answers from a studied Party improves noticeable when there are many respondents from a variety of actors dealing with environmental information matters. The first draft of this report was initially set up to summarize the responses given in order to provide a platform for discussion on the 12th meeting of the Task Force on Access to Justice (Geneva, 28 February – 1 March 2019). Thereafter, comments made during that meeting were incorporated in the report, as well as those submitted to the secretariat during the following months. The report was then discussed at the Bureau meetings in June and September 2019, after which the report was updated and communicated once more with the National Focal Points and other stakeholders to the Convention in the beginning of 2020.2 After this round of communications, further corrections, clarifications and amendments have been made. It must be noted, however, that owing to the conflicting nature of several comments, it has not been possible to reflect all of them in the text. Instead, I have tried to clearly state where differing opinions have been reported on a certain issue, giving a general picture of the arguments used. Careful consideration has also been given to meeting the different needs of Parties’ in terms of comprehensiveness and the degree of detail, bearing in mind the various levels of and ap- proaches to implementation of the Convention’s provisions on access to justice in information cases. The progress in preparing the report was presented at the online information sessions of the twenty fourth meeting of the Working Group of the Parties in July 2020. After the meet- ing, we received some further comments on the representation of the responses in the study, as well as the level of detail on controversial issues. The final text of the report was discussed and finalized on the 13th meeting of the Task Force on Access to Justice (hybrid, Geneva, 15- 16 February 2021).3 The report is structured as follows. In addition to this introduction and the laying out of the legal context in Article 9.1 (part 1), it contains a summary of the responses under each of the twelve questions posed (part 2). Thereafter I make a couple of remarks in a concluding sec- tion about good examples, main barriers and discussion points on access to justice in infor- mation cases (part 3). Finally, the viewpoints expressed in the report belong to the author only. The same can be said about shortcomings and errors in the text, the responsibility rests solely on me.

1.2 Article 9.1 of the Aarhus Convention in text and practice

Article 9.1 first sentence The study has triggered a couple of questions concerning the implementing of Article 9.1 of the Convention that can usefully be highlighted already in the beginning. The aim here is, however, not to give clear answers to the issues raised, but rather to provide a platform for

1 The responses received are available from https://unece.org/environment-policy/public-participation/aarhus- convention/analytical-study-ajai-surveyresponses 2 The comments received are available from https://unece.org/environment-policy/public-participation/aarhus- convention/analytical-study-ajai-commentsreceived 3 See https://unece.org/environmental-policy/events/thirteenth-meeting-task-force-access-justice-under-aarhus- convention

5

further discussion. As with the previous studies performed by the Task Force on Access to Justice, ambiguities in the text of the Convention will be pointed at, along with ongoing is- sues, and conclusions will be drawn from existing legal sources using a traditional method of law. The responsibility for resolving any issues raised obviously lies in the hands of other bodies, namely the Compliance Committee and the Meeting of the Parties to the Convention. As noted in the beginning of this report, the first sentence of Article 9.1 requires Parties to the Convention to provide the person requesting environmental information with recourse to chal- lenge the authority’s decision on the matter in a court of law or another independent and im- partial body established by law. The same expression can be found in Article 9.2 of the Con- vention and is reflected in the EU’s implementation legislation on Article 9.1, namely Article 6 of the Environmental Information Directive (2003/4, EID4). It is widely believed that this expression equates to “any court or tribunal” in Article 267 TFEU, as well as “an independent and impartial tribunal established by law” in Article 6 European Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR), requiring a fair trial.5 It also goes without saying that these expressions are “autonomous”, meaning that the national label on the reviewing body is of no importance when evaluating its independence and impartiality.6 As a consequence, the first sentence of Article 9.1 calls for a review mechanism performed by such a body, irrespec- tive of how it is named in the national legal system. Furthermore, Article 9.1 requires that any person has access to a court or tribunal in order to challenge a refusal on a request for environmental information. To date, the Compliance Committee has found non-compliance under Article 9.1 concerning who entitled to make such a request in only one case and that was the early communication ACCC/C/2004/1.7 This gen- eral picture is confirmed in the present study as there are no issues reported concerning appli- cants for environmental information in this respect. In fact, as all members of the public irre- spective of nationality, residence or other belonging are allowed to make such a request with- out stating an interest, one may note that “standing” according to Article 9.1 is very different from standing in a more traditional sense, meaning the delimitation of those who are con- cerned by a decision or omission. This distinction is reflected in the two definitions of the concepts “the public” and “the public concerned” in Article 2.4 and Article 2.5 respectively. Thus, when Article 4 refers to “the public”, this means that all natural or legal persons and

4 Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC. 5 See for example The Aarhus Convention – An Implementation Guide, UNECE 2nd ed. 2014 (cit. “Implementa- tion Guide 2014”) at page 189. 6 For a discussion about the meaning of the expression court of law or another independent and impartial body established by law, see the Implementation Guide 2014, at pages 188-189, also Darpö, J: Environmental Justice through the Courts. From Environmental Law and Justice in Context (Eds. Ebbesson & Okowa). Cambridge University Press 2009, p. 176-194. 7 Findings of the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee on communications ACCC/C/2004/1 (Kazakhstan) (ECE/MP.PP/C.1/2005/2/Add.1), ACCC/C/2008/30 (Republic of Moldova) (ECE/MP.PP/C.1/2009/6/Add.3), ACCC/C/2012/69 (Romania) (ECE/MP.PP/C.1/2015/10) and ACCC/C/2013/93 (Norway) (ECE/MP.PP/C.1/2017/16) seem to be the most important cases on access to environmental information, howev- er mostly dealing with the definition of environmental information, grounds for refusal, timeliness and weak enforcement. The documents and other information are available at: https://unece.org/env/pp/cc/communications-from-the-public

6

their associations, organisations and groups have the right to make a request for environmen- tal information.8 Although not explicitly stated in the first sentence of Article 9.1, the review required here covers both procedural and substantive issues under Article 4.9 As one cannot really draw a clear distinction between the two aspects, it is hard to imagine what a review covering only one of them would actually look like. Although this issue has not really been examined by the Compliance Committee, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) confirmed in case C-71/14 East Sussex (2015) – which concerned the requirements for access to environ- mental information according to the EID (2003/4) – that judicial procedures in the Member States must enable the national court “to apply effectively the relevant principles and rules of EU law when reviewing the lawfulness” of an administrative decision to deny such access.10 Although this court has no direct competence to interpret the Aarhus Convention, its case-law on the implementation in the Member States provides us with “state practice” concerning the obligations therein.11

Article 9.1 second sentence According to the second sentence of Article 9.1 of the Aarhus Convention, if the review under the first sentence of Article 9.1 is provided by a court of law, the unsuccessful applicant shall also have access to an expeditious procedure for reconsidering by a public authority or review by an independent and impartial body other than a court of law. The understanding of what body and in what way the alternative procedure shall be performed is thus of importance here. According to the text, it shall either consist of “reconsideration by a public authority” or a “review by an independent and impartial body other than a court of law”. This issue was touched upon in communication ACCC/C/2013/93, where the Compliance Committee stated in its findings:

The Committee considers that, under the legal framework of the Party concerned, the Par- liamentary Ombudsman is an inexpensive, independent and impartial body established by law through which members of the public can request review of an information request made under article 4 of the Convention. The Committee therefore finds that the Parlia- mentary Ombudsman of the Party concerned constitutes a review procedure within the scope of the second sentence of article 9, paragraph 1, of the Convention. 12

Here, it can be noted that the recommendations by the Parliamentary Ombudsman are not binding, although normally respected by the authorities. In communication ACCC/C/2013/93, the time taken for the Ombudsman’s review was at issue. When deciding this, the Compliance Committee applied both the requirement for expediency in the second sentence of Article 9.1 and the general timeliness criterion in Article 9.4. All in all, the time span between the request to the Ombudsman for review of the Government’s refusal to disclose the information and the

8 The Implementation Guide 2014 at page 191. 9 The Implementation Guide 2014 at page 191. 10 C-71/14 East Sussex (2015) para 58. 11 Article 31(3)(b) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT), see Wouters, J & Ryngaert, C & Ruys, T & De Baere, G: International law – A European perspective. Hart Publishing 2018, pp. 100-103. 12 Findings of the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee on communication ACCC/C/2013/93 (Norway) (ECE/MP.PP/C.1/2017/16), para 86.

7

final recommendation was two and a half years, which was found to be in breach of those requirements. In finding this, the Committee particularly noted that “nowhere in the documen- tation before it does the Ombudsman appear to have instructed the Ministry to respond within a certain time or even to request it to reply in a timely or expeditious manner”.13 However, while finding that the Party concerned had failed with the requirements to be expeditious and timely, the Committee did not make recommendations to the Party concerned, as there was no evidence that the non-compliance was due to a systematic error. 14 Even so, based on findings on communication ACCC/C/2013/93, a reasonable conclusion is that an Ombudsman institu- tion can be accepted as a review mechanism under the second sentence of Article 9.1. The rationale for the Committee’s standpoint seems to be that as long as the Party provides the appellant with the possibility of appealing to a court or tribunal, the expeditious procedure according to the second sentence of Article 9.1 may well be performed by an independent body issuing recommendations. This reasoning is also in line with the fact that according to the text in this provision, it alternatively suffices for the Parties to provide the information seeking public with access to administrative reconsideration to meet the demand for an expe- ditious procedure. Such a procedure within the administration exists in many countries and is today recognised as “good governance” in administrative law. It may be undertaken by a higher level within the hierarchy of that authority or even by a special organ created for this purpose, but it is always done “within the administration”. A certain demand for objectivity can be retrieved from the fact that Article 9.4 also applies to these alternative procedures. How far this will be drawn cannot be foreseen, as the Compliance Committee in findings on communication ACCC/C/2013/93 only elaborated on some of the criteria therein (timeliness), but not all (injunctive relief). Against this background, it is somewhat surprising that the Implementation Guide 2014 seems to understand that the independence and impartiality requirement in the second sentence of Article 9.1 applies to both administrative reconsideration and review procedures. Under the headline “Alternative to court review”, it is said that the additional review process can take several forms, including reconsideration by the public authority or review by an independent and impartial body other than a court of law. Thereafter, it is stated (emphasis added):15

Many ECE countries have some kind of general administrative reconsideration or appeals process for governmental decisions. This administrative process often functions more rap- idly than an appeal to a court and is often free of charge. Applied to review of requests for information, so long as the body is independent and impartial and established by law, such a process could satisfy the requirements of the Convention.

This statement in the Implementation Guide is not compatible with a straight-forward reading of the text in Article 9.1, or in line with any findings of the Compliance Committee. Instead, a reasonable conclusion is that it suffices for the Parties to have a system where the authorities’ decision to refuse the disclosure of environmental information is reconsidered within the ad- ministration, however under the condition that that procedure meets the Article 9.4 require- ments. Thereafter the discontented applicant must be able to rely on the possibility to go to court.

13 Ibid. paras. 89. 14 Ibid. paras. 87-92. 15 The Implementation Guide 2014 at page 192.

8

Article 9.1 third sentence In the third sentence of Article 9.1, it says that final decisions under Article 9.1 shall be bind- ing on the public authority holding the information. This raises the question if all kinds of decisions can be characterised as “final” as soon as the deadline for appeal has expired, irre- spective of whether it is an administrative decision or a court judgment. According to the text in the third sentence, the binding requirement applies to all final decisions under Article 9.1, even those which result from a reconsideration procedure within the administration or a re- view by an independent body outside that administration. Thus, the wording indicates that it does not matter which body took the decision, and when, as all final decisions according to the established definition above must be binding on the authority. This is also how administra- tive reconsideration processes normally function, as the second decision replaces the first one from the information holding authority. However, such a viewpoint does not seem to follow the Compliance Committee’s findings on communication ACCC/C/2013/93, as recommendations by an Ombudsman were accepted. Instead, from that case one may conclude that the binding requirement only applies to final decisions under the first sentence of Article 9.1. This is also the impression when reading the findings of the Compliance Committee on communication ACCC/C/2008/30, where it was stated (emphasis added):16

If a public agency has the possibility not to comply with a final decision of a court of law under article 9, paragraph 1, of the Convention, then doubts arise as to the binding nature of the decisions of the courts within a given legal system. Taking into account article 9, paragraph 1, which implies that the final decisions of a court of law or other independent and impartial body established by law are binding upon and must thus be complied with by public authorities, the failure of the public authority to fully execute the final decision of the court of law implies non-compliance of the Party concerned with article 9, para- graph 1, of the Convention.

In the European Union as set out by Article 6 of EID (2003/4), the binding criteria also ap- plies only to review decisions by a court of law or another independent and impartial body. The same line of reasoning is furthermore confirmed in the Implementation Guide 2014.17 Based on the above, it can be concluded that the Ombudsman institution or an Information Commissioner may be regarded as review procedures according to the first sentence of Article 9.1, but only if its decisions are binding on the information holding authority. On the other hand, when these institutions can issue recommendations only, they still may well be accepted as alternative complaint procedures under the second sentence of that provision.

16 Findings of the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee on communication ACCC/C/2008/30 (Republic of Moldova) (ECE/MP.PP/C.1/2009/6/Add.3), para. 35. 17 The Implementation Guide 2014 at page 189, see also at page 193 about the requirement according to Article 9.1 to provide with – in addition to any advisory processes – a possibility for the applicant to obtain a decision which is binding upon the information holding authority.

9

2. Questions concerning access to justice in cases on the right to environmental information:

1. Please indicate time limits for public authorities holding environmental information to re- spond to requests for environmental information. Is there a requirement for the issuance of a refusal in writing and stating reasons for the decision? How is the applicant informed about the possibilities to appeal the decision?

Summary of the responses

All the studied Parties have time frames in law for how soon a request for environmental in- formation must be answered, either by expressions such as “promptly”, “immediately” or “as soon as possible” or stated in number of days. In Swedish law, the requirement is to disclose the requested information “forthwith”. According to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, this shall be understood as a couple of days, unless special circumstances are at hand. Those Parties applying numeric criteria range from 48 hours to one month, but most lie in the range of 8, 10 or 15 calendar or working days. All of the studied Parties also leave room for extending the time frame due to reasons such as complexity, volume, the need to consult between authori- ties or to collect data, etc. The extension period commonly is the same as the first time frame, for example 15 days on top of the first 15 days. It is often stated in law that an extension must be communicated with the applicant some time before the first deadline expires. Of the stud- ied Parties, Germany, Ireland and Portugal seem to have the longest formal time frames, al- lowing up to two months in complex cases. In quite a few Parties, the consequence of not meeting the deadline is that this “silence” is regarded as either a refusal to the request or an appealable omission (EU, IE, ME, PT, MD, RS, SK, CH), enabling the applicant to appeal that “decision” by the authority. I will return to these so-called “negative silence rules” in section 3.

2. What are the time limits to appeal a decision on access to environmental information? What are the most frequently used grounds for appeal? Are there any issues concerning who has standing in such cases? To what body and in which form is the appeal made; recourse for re- view within the public authority or to the higher authority; Information Commissioner, Om- budsman or any other independent and impartial body; or directly to court of law? If appeal to the review body other than a court of law is available in any form, does that request suspend the time limits to appeal to the court? Is there a requirement of exhaustion of administrative review procedures prior to bringing the case to court?

Summary of the responses

First of all, there are no “standing issues” reported in the study. All the studied Parties allow “anyone” to request environmental information and there does not seem to be any restriction to this in administrative practice or case-law. Moreover, most Parties studied give standing to those whose interests may be impacted negatively by the disclosure of the requested infor- mation, which seems to be a reasonable point of view from an “equality of arms” perspective. It is also a requirement expressed in the EU law implementing Article 9.1 of Aarhus.18

18 See Article 6.2 in the Environmental Information Directive (2003/4).

10

Appeals against decisions on a request for environmental information or appealing a failure to reply to a request can be made in a variety of ways. Commonly, there is a possibility to ask for administrative reconsideration and/or appeal to a specialized body, created for the purpose of handling complaints in information cases (information tribunals19). The time frames to bring such appeals in the studied Parties lie between 15 days and three months. In addition, there is a possibility to go to court within a similar or slightly longer time limit (one to three months). Normally, these procedures are made in succession, meaning that the reconsidera- tion process or the review in the information tribunal must be concluded before the discon- tented party can appeal to a court of law. As thus the administrative process is a prerequisite for judicial review, one can say that those systems have an “exhaustion obligation”. Under these circumstances, it is consequential that the administrative phase has a “suspensive effect” on the appeal to court, meaning that the time limit for judicial review starts not until the ad- ministrative appeal procedure is concluded. However, as the information on such an effect given in the responses is meagre, one cannot draw any firm conclusions on this issue.20 There are also exceptions to this overall picture, where the discontented applicant can either demand administrative reconsideration or go directly to court. The respondents from Kazakhstan give such an example. Further, Sweden stands out in that the applicant is instructed to go directly to court, although the appeal should be submitted to the authority that made the first decision. When the written appeal arrives to that authority, it undertakes administrative reconsideration of the decision. If the appeal is not satisfied in this procedure, the documents are forwarded to the relevant court. In this way, the administrative phase in the appeal process to court is a mandatory part in the proceedings and has a suspensive effect. According to the responses, Ireland, Montenegro, Portugal, Serbia and Switzerland have cre- ated special tribunals for dealing with complaints or appeals in information cases. The aim with setting up such bodies is to simplify and speed up the conflict handling in these cases, as well as keeping down the costs for the parties involved. Specialization seems to be another reason, as those bodies can be staffed with experts in the subject area. Decisions made by the information tribunals are commonly binding upon the administration. Besides, all or almost all of the studied Parties have an Ombudsman or a similar organ for administrative com- plaints. Unlike the information tribunals, the Ombudsman’s function is mainly disciplinary and his or her decisions are commonly regarded as recommendations only. It is also interest- ing to note that the information tribunals in Ireland, Serbia and Switzerland can undertake mediation in information cases. This is also possible in the courts of Kazakhstan and the Re- public of Moldova by way of settlements between the parties to the proceedings in infor- mation cases. I will return to the relationship between administrative reconsideration, infor- mation tribunals and judicial review, as well as mediation in section 3. This question also includes a request for information about the most common derogation grounds used in the studied Parties. However, the responses given here are too meagre to draw any real conclusions from, why we have declined to do so.

19 The term “information tribunal” is used here to cover all kinds of administrative bodies that have been created outside the information holding authorities in order to handle information cases, irrespective of their national labels. 20 However, this requirement follows from CJEUs case-law, see C-664/15 Protect (2017) where the “exhaustion criterion” was accepted under certain conditions (paras 59-81), also C-73/16 Peter Puškár (2017) para 76.

11

3. If appeal is made to an independent body mentioned above, how is the independence and impartiality of that body ensured?

Summary of the responses A lack of the criteria for independence and impartiality in the posed question meant that most respondents just made a blank statement that the reviewing bodies of the Parties studies either are independent and impartial or – in some cases – quite the opposite. In most cases, little support is given for any of these viewpoints. Some of the answers, however, provide a little more food for thought. As pointed at in part 1.2, it should also be noted that the requirement for independence and impartiality does not apply to “administrative reconsideration” under the second sentence of Article 9.1, even though the procedure shall be “fair” and “equitable” according to Article 9.4. The respondent from the EU Commission states that the reconsideration by the Secretary- General of the Commission is independent and impartial, as it is done by a specific team of the Secretary-General separate from the various Directorates-General and services responsible for decision-making on access to documents upon request. According to the respondent, this is evident through statistics showing that a substantial amount of the initial decisions are total- ly or partially revised by the reviewing body. However, this is contested by ClientEarth, claiming that that body forms part of the same institution as the one responding to the infor- mation request. The German respondents inform that the special body within the administra- tion – die Wiederspruchsbehörde – is independent and impartial, as it is unheard of that the administration does not abide to its decision. Respondents from other Parties reported that the independence is guaranteed by law. However, in some of the responses, the analysis is further developed as to why the information tribunal in their country is independent and impartial from the administration. In Ireland, the reporters seem to agree that the Commissioner for Environmental Information (CEI) was created in order to have such a status and to focus on customer services, fairness, empathy and innovation. Further, the independence of the Com- mission for Access to Administrative Documents (CADA) in Portugal is guaranteed by law and its decisions cannot be altered by other authorities. CADA is chaired by a justice from the Supreme Administrative Court and consists of members from different sectors of society, who cannot be questioned or removed from their positions. Finally, the Commissioner for Infor- mation of Public Importance and Personal Data Protection in Serbia is autonomous and inde- pendent according to law. This Commissioner must not take instructions from other parts of the administration and can be made liable or be prosecuted only with the consent of the Na- tional Parliament. Without any doubt, some of these information tribunals can be regarded as independent and impartial even to the level that they would be regarded as a “court or tribunal” according to Article 6 of the ECHR. Others may not be in a formal sense, but society places such a high degree of trust in them within the administration, that the actual effect is similar. However, a conclusive evaluation on this issue cannot be done within the framework of this study, as we have not provided with any criteria for this in the questions posed. So for now at least, it will have to suffice with these remarks on the responses. For the future, it would be interesting to study this issue further in order to show good examples and discuss how the criteria according to Article 9.4 apply on these procedures.

12

4. What costs (fees, charges) are connected to review before the court of law or other review bodies in these cases?

Summary of the responses To begin with, it should be noted that the question concerns litigation costs in information cases, not the costs for copying or otherwise providing the requested documents. As for the responses, they mirror the general picture among the Parties to the Convention as regards the different kinds of costs that exist in environmental litigation (court fees and other court costs, lawyers’ fees and experts’ and witness’ fees). However, the overall cost level seems to be lower compared with other kinds of environmental cases. This may of course be attributed to the fact that information cases in general are “simpler” than other environmental cases on permits, EIAs, infrastructural projects, mines, etc. Also the common requirement for the courts to deal with information cases as expediently as possible (fast-tracked, prioritized) or even to use written procedures contributes to lowering the costs. Moreover, there do not ap- pear to be any costs in the administrative appeal phase, irrespective of whether this is per- formed as administrative reconsideration or review by an information tribunal. But of course, there are also exceptions from this rule, the €50 standard fee for an appeal to the Irish CEI being one such example and can be further reduced, waivered or refunded in certain circum- stances. Concerning costs in judicial review proceedings in information cases, the responses are not very elaborate. Even so, court fees in the studied Parties seem to be common, although there are also exceptions (EU, SE). However, the fees seem to be at a rather low level, ranging from €3,50 (RS) to €70 (SK), €150 (GE) and €210-300 (IE). It also seems quite common for the studied Parties to apply exemptions or reduced fees in information cases (IE, PT). Having said that, the Loser Pays Principle (LPP) seems also to be quite common (EU, DE, CH), as well as the mandatory use of representation by a lawyer (EU, PT, CH). This may of course entail sub- stantially higher litigation costs for the losing party. In Switzerland, for example, the total cost may be as high as €1,000-€3,500 and according to the German Streitwert system, these cases may cost the unsuccessful litigant €5,000. Also one of the respondents from the EU (Cli- entEarth) claims that the litigation costs in information cases can be significant and unpredict- able, partly because the losing party can be ordered to pay the litigation costs of several inter- veners. At the other end of the spectrum, there are examples where costs do not exist in in- formation cases, or at least are very low (MD, SE). It should also be noted that it is quite common for the courts to waive litigation costs in information cases for those who are in so- cial need or for other personal reasons. In some of the studied Parties, this may also be done when the applicant for information is an ENGO (SK) or when the cases are of public interest (IE). Sometimes legal aid is available in these cases (RS, CH). 5. What is the average time needed for the court of law or another independent and impartial body to decide an information case, i.e. from the introduction of the appeal to the notification of the decision? If the national rules of appeal require administrative reconsideration before the appeal is submitted to the court of law or another review body, that time should also be also separately specified.

Summary of the responses In general, there are set time frames in law for administrative reconsideration or review. These are often rather short, ranging from 15 days to two months, but can commonly be ex-

13

tended in exceptional cases. For judicial review in court, formal time frames do not seem to frequently apply, apart from general requirements for the expedient handling of information cases. In some of the studied Parties, the courts seem to successfully deal with these cases in surprisingly short periods of time. Thus, it is reported from the Republic of Moldova that in- formation cases may be concluded within 30 days. In other Parties – with or without require- ments for fast-tracking these cases – the time used in the courts range from 3 to 6 months (IE, KZ, RS, SE). In addition to this, however, there are many examples where the court proceed- ings take more than one year, sometimes several years in complicated cases (EU, GE, SK). In others, there are no statistics available for information cases as such, but only for all kinds of administrative cases. In Germany for example, the average time used in the administrative courts is slightly more than eleven months, in Serbia six months. It should finally be noted though, that there are many reports claiming that the set time frames or general requirements for expediency are often exceeded, especially when the execution phase is included. Some of the respondents claim that the whole process from the information request through the appeal procedure and further to the execution of the court order may take several years to conclude in certain cases (EU, GE, KZ, PT, RS, SK).

6. Are decisions of courts and other review bodies in information cases in writing, publicly available, binding and final? If the appeal is successful, how is the independent body’s/court’s decision enforced; by ordering the public authority to disclose the information; by disclosing the information directly; by suing the public authority if they persist in refusing to disclose the information or by any other means?

Summary of the responses In all of the studied Parties, decisions from administrative reconsideration or review proce- dures, as well as judgments from the courts are given in writing. Some of the information tri- bunals publish all their decisions online (IE, PT). Decisions from the higher levels of the court systems are also commonly published and thus available for the public at large. From the lower court levels, however, judgments are not always accessible, at least not outside fee- based private websites. Exception from this general picture are provided by the Republic of Moldova and Slovakia, where all judgments from all levels are published on the website of the Ministry of Justice. As for the enforcement, this is consistently performed by way of court orders addressed to the authority to disclose the information requested, or by quashing the administrative decision and remitting the case back to the authority with instructions. In some of the studied Parties, en- forcement is reinforced by the power for the information tribunals or the court to combine such an order with a fine for disobedience (DE, PT, ME, MD, RS). In others, it is a criminal offence not to comply with such an order (GE, ME, MD, RS, SK). In a last category, a sepa- rate enforcement procedure must be initiated by the information requester in order to have the judgment executed (KZ). However, quite a few of the responses given are merely stating that court orders must be abided to according to law, but without further details about what hap- pens in cases of disobedience. It also seems to be quite common that court orders are met by another decision from the authority not to disclose the information requested, this time apply- ing another exemption ground. It should also be noted that nearly all of the studied Parties have established an Ombudsman institution, but his or her competence is mainly disciplinary and the decisions regarded as rec- ommendations only. Against this backdrop, I think it is safe to say that the effectiveness of

14

some of the legal systems is undermined by the failure to enforce the “binding decisions” of information tribunals and courts. I return to this issue in the discussion in section 3.

7. Can disciplinary, administrative or criminal sanctions be exercised against the public offi- cials if disclosure of environmental information is refused unlawfully? Would it be possible for the applicant or other members of the public to be a party to such proceedings?

Summary of the responses In most of the studied Parties, there is both disciplinary (administrative) and criminal liability for failure to comply with court orders concerning the disclosure of environmental infor- mation. One can assume that such a liability is triggered by what is called “faute grave” or serious maladministration by civil servants. A Swedish case may illustrate this, where a re- searcher in psychiatry and his assistants were fined for having destroyed documents in breach of a court order. The researcher took the case all the way to the Grand Chamber of the Euro- pean Court of Human Rights, but without success.21 The Grand Chamber found that there had been no breach of the researchers’ right to private life or his right of negative expression un- der Articles 8 and 10 of the ECHR. According to the responses received in this study, the re- questers for environmental information commonly cannot intervene as a party to the proceed- ings concerning administrative and criminal sanctions. In some Parties, refusals concerning disclosure of environmental information can also trigger civil liability (PT, RS). The information provided in the responses is however too meagre to enable any substantive conclusion on this issue. It would be interesting to know more about who may initiate such proceedings and what can be obtained from them.

8. Do you have any experience of situations/cases where individuals or ENGOs asking for environmental information have been penalized, persecuted or harassed in any way for their involvement?

Summary of the responses

There are no such experiences according to this study, save for anecdotal examples. One of the respondents from Kazakhstan claims that defamation actions are common, and even initi- ated by the administration. As this statement has not been verified by other respondents, it is hard to draw any conclusion therefrom.

9. Do you have any experience of misuse or abuse of the right to environmental information and the consequences thereof?

Summary of the responses The EU respondent says that repetitive requests are handled in a simplified manner and notes that there is a special procedure for wide ranging (in substance or in time) requests for infor- mation. To what extent these procedures have been used is however not elaborated upon. The

21 ECtHR 2012-04-03 in Case No 41723/06; Christopher Gillberg v. Sweden.

15

Irish Commissioner of Environmental Information has considered some requests for infor- mation which have been regarded as unreasonable, close to misuse (sometimes referred to as “fishing trip” requests). Also in Portugal, there is some experience of repetitive requests, but not concerning environmental information. In one of the Slovak reports, it is reported that there are several cases of abuse in which the authorities have been flooded with requests for environmental information. This has been dealt with by the courts by way of applying “bully- ing law enforcement”. It would be interesting to know more about this concept.

10. In your view, what are the main barriers in your legal system concerning access to justice for the members of the public in cases on the right to environmental information?

Summary of the responses Cost issues are mentioned as a barrier to access to justice in environmental information cases from four Parties (GE, DE, IE and CH) and weak enforcement from three (GE, RS, SK). The lack of timeliness is also highlighted in responses received from three Parties, two of which relate to proceedings in court (GE, PT), and one to the absence of time frames for administra- tive reconsiderations (DE). Further barriers mentioned are lack of resources in the administra- tion (RS) or inadequate staffing of the reviewing bodies (IE), absence of specialized and knowledgeable courts (KZ, ME, RS, SK), or even independent courts (KZ). Against this background, I will expand a little on the lack of timeliness in environmental information cases in section 3.

11. Does your legal system provide with any innovative approaches concerning administra- tive and judicial review procedures in cases on the right to environmental information, for example concerning the requirement for the procedure to be expeditious, the use of alternative dispute resolutions (ADRs), costs, remedies, means for execution of review decisions on dis- closure or use of e-justice initiatives?

Summary of the responses

To begin with, it may be observed that respondents from one legal arena are not always the best equipped to answer this question, as what is everyday business for them may be very innovative for “outsiders”. This is a general experience from all comparative legal research where the phenomenon that “you cannot see the wood for the trees” is well known. An ex- ample of this in this study is when the respondent from the Irish Office for the Commissioner for Environmental Information (CEI) claims that nothing within the domestic legislation pro- vides for innovative approaches. In my view, this is quite surprising, as the CEI itself in an international comparison is an advanced information tribunal and thus very innovative. Be that as it may, the reporter from EU mentions that the European Ombudsman has a fast- track procedure for dealing with environmental information cases, according to which it takes no more than two months from complaint to decision. The German respondent highlights the in-camera procedure which enables for the reviewing court to ask a special senate within the Federal Administrative Court (Bundesverwaltungsgericht) to decide on the disclosure of cer- tain documents without revealing the content to the parties to the proceedings in environmen- tal information cases. In Sweden, the information requested can be disclosed by the court it- self if the court finds that there are no grounds for refusal. It should be noted though, that this rarely happens as most documents in the case file commonly go back to the authority. The

16

possibility of undertaking mediation in information tribunals or courts is mentioned in the reports of the five studied Parties (IE, KZ, MD, RS, CH). In my view, this calls for further clarification as to what, and when, such proceedings can successfully be brought in environ- mental information cases.

12. Can you please provide us with a short description of particularly important or innovative information cases, as well as cases which illustrate the main barriers concerning access to justice in these matters.

Summary of the responses A substantial number of cases are provided in the responses received, but almost all concern issues relating to environmental information as such; the definition of “public authority” and “environmental information”, the application of exemptions from the requirement for disclo- sure, etc. Only a couple of cases seem to be related to issues concerning access to justice in information cases. For example, one report from Georgia raises the weak enforcement of court decisions ordering the disclosure of environmental information; in one case the time span between order and actual disclosure was six months, in another the request for infor- mation was made in April 2015 and the disclosure came three years thereafter, in March 2018. Further, one respondent from Slovakia claims that the court practice to remit the case back to the authority with instructions for disclosure does not always function well, as the authorities may invent new grounds for refusal. Therefore, such a system can result in an eternal “ping pong” with those cases.

17

3. Remarks and discussion

Introduction In this section, I make some remarks on issues that are problematic, challenging or especially interesting from general viewpoint. As for challenges, I will focus on the time issue and en- forcement. Thereafter, I comment upon a couple of interesting features in the national legisla- tion concerning access to justice in information cases. Some of these seem very interesting and may therefore be worth studying further.

Unproblematic issues To begin with, it is worth noting that there are a couple of issues that seem to be unproblemat- ic from an access to justice perspective in environmental information cases in the 12 studied Parties. First and foremost, and as already noted, standing does not seem to be an issue in these cases as anyone can ask for environmental information without having to state an inter- est in the matter. Also other concerned persons and entities are commonly accepted as parties to the proceedings, such as those whose interests may be negatively impacted by the disclo- sure. However, this conclusion must be caveated as there may be decisions in the legal sys- tems that are not appealable at all. For example, decisions by the Swedish Government on the disclosure of environmental information cannot be brought to any court of law. A reservation was made in this respect at the signing of the Convention,22 which seems to be endorsed by the domestic courts.23 And as the questionnaire did not cover the issue of “appealability”, we cannot draw any conclusion on the existence of such decisions in the studied Parties. In addition to standing, there are also other issues concerning access to justice in information cases that seem to be less problematic based on the responses received, such as formal time frames for the administrative decision-making and reconsideration procedures. Something similar can probably be said about the review proceedings in the established information tri- bunals in the studied Parties. Having said that, this statement must also be distinguished from timeliness in practice, where the picture may be quite different. Moreover, the requirement to provide written reasoned decisions in cases concerning envi- ronmental information seems to less problematic in the studied Parties. Further, there would appear to be no costs in the administrative phase of the appeal of decisions on environmental information. Also, regarding the availability of decisions and judgments there seems to be a general fulfilment of the Aarhus Convention requirements, at least concerning those from information tribunals and courts of last instance. The power to impose administrative and even criminal sanctions for serious misconduct and maladministration seems to exist com- monly in the studied Parties, at least in theory. Further, no clear cases of harassments and defamation claims against those who request environmental information were reported. Mis- use and abuse of access to information rights seems to be slightly more common, although the evidence given in the study is mostly anecdotal. Interestingly though, the respondents from the European Commission claim that that authority has developed a specific procedure to avoid abuse and handle wide ranging requests. It would be interesting to learn more about that

22 See https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=IND&mtdsg_no=XXVII- 13&chapter=27&clang=_en#EndDec 23 Swedish Supreme Administrative Court (Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen), decision 2017-05-17 in case No 5670-16.

18

procedure. On the other hand, there is also a report from the public concerned in one of the studied Parties that these kinds of specific procedures sometimes are abused by the admin- istration in order to avoid complying with court orders on disclosure of environmental infor- mation.

Barriers and challenges Based on the responses received in this study, it is safe to say that the main barriers to access to justice in information cases are the length of the procedure, weak enforcement and – to a certain extent – costs. The first issue can be illustrated by one of the responses, according to which the court procedure in that Party at first instance is expedient and effective, commonly lasting for no more than one month. On appeal, however, the procedure is slow, unpredictable and the appeal has no suspensive effect on the issue to which the environmental information relates. Examples are also given other Parties of complex cases that have taken more than 4 years from the administrative decision to the final judgment, and sometimes even more. One should also take into account that access to information can be urgent in environmental cases; for example, if the request is made in order to obtain information concerning an EIA on a permit application, the permit might already be issued at the time of the court order for disclo- sure. This is a typical example of what may be called a “case won in court, but lost on the ground”. To this background, the requirements for timeliness should be interpreted with extra care in relation to information cases.24 Therefore, this issue needs to be further discussed as a major obstacle for access to justice in environmental information cases. It is similarly evident based on the responses received that the failure to enforce orders for disclosure by information tribunals and courts is another important barrier to access to justice in information cases. Weak enforcement is widely reported in the study, occurring mainly in three situations. The first is when the information holding authority does not respond to the disclosure order, or tries to evade it with silence. The second is when the reviewing court’s competence is confined to quashing the administrative decision, which necessitates for the information applicant to make a renewed request. If then the authority finds another ground for refusal, s/he must appeal once again to the court, which may quash the decision once again, etc. Such “ping-pong” seems to be quite a common phenomenon, at least in some of the studied Parties. The third situation is when the enforcement lies in the hands of a body other than the court, or in another procedure separated from the appeal process. Contrasting to this, effective enforcement seems to be achieved when the court or tribunal deciding on the merits of the case also has the power to invoke fines for disobedience, at least as far as this power is actually used in practise. Further discussion on enforcement issues would provide us with knowledge and experience about more organisational and legal instruments to deal with this general problem of environmental law, including in information cases. Costs are always mentioned as barriers to access to justice in environmental cases, and this picture is – at least to a certain extent – confirmed in our study. As such, these cases are indis- tinguishable from other kinds of environmental cases, although as already noted, the costs in a number of studied Parties are at a lower level. On the other hand, the litigation costs in some of the studied Parties can be quite substantial. This can partly be attributed to a mandatory requirement to be represented by a lawyer in court. For now, I have little to add to this general

24 See Compliance Committee’s statement in the last sentence of paragraph 88 in findings on communication ACCC/C/2013/93 (Norway) (ECE/MP.PP/C.1/2017/16) and the Report of the Compliance Committed to the Meeting of the Parties at its sixth session (document ECE/MP.PP/2017/32, para. 70).

19

discussion, except to observe that costs do not seem to be an issue in the information tribunals which some of the studied Parties have set up. As these bodies also seem to provide some solution for the other two barriers mentioned here – lack of timeliness and weak enforcement – it may be fruitful to examine how they are designed and function.

Good examples and interesting features in the studied Parties I want to draw attention to three features that I find particularly interesting in the reports from the Parties studied. To begin with, I think the information tribunals seem to be very interest- ing, as they can provide the information seeking public with an expeditious and cheap avenue for appeal of administrative decisions. Furthermore, as such bodies can be specialised on this field of law and may be equipped with a competence to undertake mediation (see below), they may provide with sufficient experience and expertise to guarantee legal certainty and swift- ness in these procedures. If they meet the criterion of being independent and impartial accord- ing to Article 6 ECHR and Article 267 TFEU, they can also ease the burden of the national court systems. Information tribunals is also a feature that has raised growing attention in in- ternational law due to the positive experiences therefrom. For example, the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe Representative on Freedom of the Media recommended in 2007 to create such independent oversight bodies in its Member States.25 Further, in many of the legal systems, administrative silence is regarded as a negative decision when the deadline given in law is expired. This legal construct for dealing with “administra- tive silence” or “administrative delay” is in line with a general development of modern ad- ministrative law, not least in order to strengthen the application of EU law. The possibility for certain actors to bring a case to the CJEU in order to challenge failures to act by the insti- tutions of EU already exists in Article 265 in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). The result of such an action is that the Court declares the omission in breach of the EU Treaties. Also in secondary EU legislation, we have a number of legal constructs in order to deal with administrative omission or silence. According to Article 12 in Directive 2014/65 on markets in financial instruments, the consequence of silence from the competent authority on a notification from someone to undertake an acquisition, is that the authority has no objection to the merger. This is an example of what is a called a “positive silence rule”. Examples of the opposite – “negative silence rules”26 similar to the ones mentioned in the study – can be found in Article 10(6) of the EC Merger Regulation 139/2004. Even more rel- evant is Article 8(3) of the Regulation 1049/2001 regarding public access to European Par- liament, Council and Commission documents, which states that the failure of the institution to reply within the prescribed time limit shall be considered as a negative reply and entitle the applicant to institute court proceedings and/or make a complaint to the Ombudsman. Also in Member State laws, such negative silence rules have established roots and are today quite common.27 My general conclusion is that this legal construct – which in essence means that silence is equalled to an appealable refusal – is a good example on how to effectively deal with administrative passivity as regards access to environmental information. Having said this, there can also be drawbacks to such a system; when the information seeking public ap-

25 See Report by the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media on access to information by the media in the OSCE region: trends and recommendations available (30 April 2007, p. 4) at https://www.osce.org/fom/24892 26 Sometimes also called “implied dismissals” or “deemed refusals”. 27 See opinion by Advocate General Wahl in C-58/13 and C-59/13 Torresi (2014), at para 70.

20

peals “silence”, the administration’s arguments against disclosure can be unknown, something that may make the procedure in court unpredictable, complicated and – not least – lengthy. The final good example concerns mediation. As noted under question 11, mediation possibili- ties are available in information cases in a number of the studied Parties, both in information tribunals and in courts. Respondents noted that an agreement reached through mediation can be effectively executed due to their status as executable documents. Further, mediation may be a useful tool in the initial phase of the proceedings, for getting the parties together, to clari- fy the controversial issues and to see whether any settlement can be reached between them. This seems very interesting and may be an issue to study further.

Concluding remarks Access to information plays a crucial role in environmental matters. Without information, the public cannot participate in the decision-making procedures in any meaningful way. It is a vital ingredient in what is regarded as “good governance” on this field of law, aiming at keep- ing the public well informed and engaged in the procedures. This way, access to information improves the transparency in the decision-making and thereby secures the environmental in- terests protected in law. It also serves as a means for improving the quality of the decision- making and thereby reduce the need for court proceedings. Against this background, it is quite surprising that access to justice in information cases has raised relatively little attention in the Aarhus discourse over the years.28 Cases concerning Article 9.1 and its implementation in the Parties to the Convention are rather few compared with those dealing with Articles 9.2 and 9.3. As already noted, the Compliance Committee has so far dealt with only three cases of interest for this study. Even if there are more cases pending as of today with the allegations concerning the implementation of Article 9.1 (e.g., see communications ACCC/C/2015/134, ACCC/C/2018/161 and ACCC/C/2019/173),29 it remains to be seen what comes out that may be of importance from an access to justice per- spective. As has been illustrated in this study, also on national level there is a limited number of court cases concerning access to justice in information cases. The same goes for infringe- ment cases and requests for preliminary rulings in the CJEU, where the vast majority of some 50 Aarhus cases deal with the implementation of Articles 9.2 and 9.3. To a certain extent, however, this general picture is balanced by the fact that there is quite a number of very inter- esting cases regarding requests for environmental information from the EU institutions that has been brought by the ENGO community by way direct action to CJEU according to Regu- lation 1049/2001. But even so, the general impression is that access to justice in information cases has not been paid the attention it merits in the public debate concerning Aarhus and its implementation in the UNECE region. The primary intention of this study has therefore been to compensate for this silence and start a wider debate on the implementation of Article 9.1 in the Parties to the Convention. It has also become quite apparent that some of the issues raised are quite contro-

28 Although it has been highlighted in other fora, such as the Council of Europe in its 2002 Recommendation on Access to Official Documents and Principle IX therein, also OSCEs 2007 review of the right of access to infor- mation in the OSCE region. For further information, see Open Society Justice Initiative: Right2info: Information Commission/ers and Other Oversight Bodies and Mechanisms; https://www.right2info.org/information- commission-ers-and-other-oversight-bodies-and-mechanisms 29 See https://unece.org/env/pp/cc/communications-from-the-public

21

versial and need to be debated further. And this is where the Task Force on Access to Justice has a role to play as a platform for studies and meetings where all aspects of Aarhus can be discussed. This role as a mere facilitator for a wider debate without any formal significance is in fact the strength of our body under the Convention. Stockholm 28 February 2021: Jan Darpö

PRESS RELEASE

6th meeting of the National Policy Dialogue on Water in the

Republic of Moldova

Organised in the frame of the European Union Water Initiative +

Chisinau, 19 November 2020. The 6th meeting of the National Policy Dialogue on Water focused on recent

progress in modernising national water policy in the country, extending access to water supply and sanitation,

and enhancing transboundary cooperation. As the European Union Water Initiative Plus (EUWI+) programme

is in its final phase of implementation, the National Policy Dialogue meeting offered an opportunity to address

the remaining tasks in conjunction with the priorities and activities of the country-specific work programme. It

was also an occasion to discuss the next steps towards ensuring sustainable results and to reflect on future

priorities for the Republic of Moldova in the water sector beyond 2020. Participants discussed how different

deliverables and outputs of the project will contribute to protecting the environment and water resources and

bring practical benefits for citizens of the Republic of Moldova.

The meeting was organised in the frame of the EUWI+ programme, which supports the Republic of Moldova

in its journey towards sustainable water management including through technical, financial and capacity-

building support. The Republic of Moldova is aligning its water sector with the best international practices in

order to attract further investments in the water sector. This includes approximation towards ground-breaking

European Union approaches, such as the EU Water Framework Directive, aimed at protecting people’s health

and the natural environment. Since the Republic of Moldova shares its river basins with Romania, an EU-

member state, and Ukraine, transboundary cooperation plays a key role in the country. Over the past 4 years,

EUWI+ has supported a combination of policy reform and capacity development at both national and basin

scales, with activities tailored to ensure sustainable results.

Mr Gintautas Baranauskas, Deputy Head of Cooperation at the EU Delegation to Moldova, stated:

" The European Union has provided support to the Republic of Moldova, alongside other Eastern partner countries, to improve water policies and practices, including in a transboundary context. Sustainability of the

results achieved and ownership of this work are crucial. Together, we will continue focusing on benefits for

people and the environment as part of our post-2020 cooperation agenda. The EU support for the

development of the water supply and sanitation in the Republic of Moldova is a proof of our engagement to

unlock investments that increase people’s wellbeing. Policy reforms and better governance, including in the

water sector, are making such support possible."

Mr Dorin Andros, State Secretary of the Ministry of Agriculture, Regional Development and Environment

(MARDE) said:

“This meeting gives us the opportunity to discuss the latest issues in the field, involving all relevant institutions

and development partners, who share with us the EU's best practices in water and sanitation management.

Today, we have the opportunity to outline the following tasks that will aim to ensure the sustainability of

results. The hydrological drought and this year's floods have shown us that the water resources management

system needs to be streamlined and adjusted to the needs and specific features of the country. To achieve

this, complex evaluations and analyses have been launched in order to prevent and reduce the

consequences, as well as to strengthen the relevant tools for managing and responding to the risks of

meteorological phenomena."

Mr Alisher Mamadzhanov, Environmental Affairs Officer at the United Nation Economic Commission for

Europe (UNECE) said:

“Recent examples of cooperation on flood prevention and response with Romania and Ukraine clearly

illustrate the practical benefits of transboundary water cooperation. Moldova’s recent report on Sustainable

Development Goal indicator 6.5.2 also demonstrates the high level achieved in cooperation with neighbours.

The level of political and technical cooperation should be further enhanced in the light of bilateral agreements

and the requirements of the EU Water Framework Directive, International Commission for the Protection of

the Danube River and the Water Convention.”

Mr Alexander Zinke, team leader of the EUWI+ consortium of the Environment Agency Austria and the

International Office of Water from France , said that he valued the significant progress achieved in the project:

“With the new River Basin Management Plan and training courses, modern laboratory equipment and pilot

surveys of surface and groundwater bodies, a new level in water management is currently being reached in

Moldova through excellent cooperation with MARDE, the Environment Agency Moldova and the Agency

Apele Moldovei.”

Background info

National Policy Dialogues

Established within the European Union's Water Initiative, National Policy Dialogues provide a platform for key

stakeholders to identify, prepare, and implement reforms in the field of water policy. NPDs also aim to help

coordinate donor activities and enhance international cooperation. This event was organised by the European

Union Water Initiative Plus for Eastern Partnership Countries (EUWI+), a project funded by the European

Union to strengthen integrated water resources management and support the alignment of Moldovan water

legislation with the EU Water Framework Directive.

EUWI+ project

Launched in September 2016 for a duration of 4 years, the European Union Water Initiative plus for the

Eastern Partnership (EUWI+) is one of the biggest policy dialogue and technical support commitments of

the European Union to the water sector in the Eastern Partner countries. The programme supports the six

partner countries (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, the Republic of Moldova and Ukraine) to align their

legislation with European Union policy on water management, with a focus on transboundary rivers. The

project is co-funded by the European Union (EUR 23.5 million) and Austria and France (EUR 1.0 million). It

is implemented by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the United

Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE), and an EU member states consortium comprising the

Environment Agency Austria (Austria) and the International Office for Water (France).

For more information and to access documents discussed during the NPD, please visit:

euwipluseast.eu

National Policy Dialogue Coordination Committee Meeting

Summary Record

Details:

The 6th Meeting of the Coordination Committee of the National Policy Dialogue on IWRM in the Republic of Moldova Date - 19 November 2020

Reference: a hybrid meeting through ZOOM platform organised by the European Union Water Initiative plus (EUWI+) programme (organised by OECD on behalf of implementing partners). Several senior officers repre- senting the key beneficiary ministry (MARDE) were present in person, while other participants were connected via ZOOM.

Summary and key decisions

The Coordination Committee of the National Policy Dialogue (NPD Coordination Committee) on Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) welcomed the achievements of the National Policy Dialogue in Mol- dova, with support from the EU-funded European Union Water Initiative plus for the Eastern Partnership pro- gramme (EUWI+) over the past 4 years. EUWI+ has supported a combination of policy reform and capacity development action at both the national and basin levels through activities tailored to ensure sustainability of the results both in Moldova and across all six Eastern Partnership countries.

The NPD Coordination Committee thanked the European Union and all the development partners and bilateral donors for their continued support to the Republic of Moldova in the area of IWRM and water supply and sani- tation (WSS), and expressed its hope for continued cooperation beyond 2021 in the framework of the Eastern Partnership.

The Coordination Committee took note of the information on the recent achievements in the field of water resources policy and management in the Republic of Moldova, as presented by the Ministry of Agriculture, Regional Development and Environment (MARDE), and the needs for support for further activities to strengthen the capacities of the institutions in order to carry out their missions.

The Coordination Committee acknowledged the support provided by the European Union to the Republic of Moldova to improve water policies and practices, including in the transboundary context, and confirmed that policy reforms and better governance, including in the water sector, are making such support possible.

The Coordination Committee welcomed the progress made in the Republic of Moldova on the development of recent policies and normative acts in the water sector. Specifically, the Coordination Committee welcomed support provided for the updated national WSS Strategy and associated mid-term Action Plan (AP) on imple- menting it, adopted by Government Resolution Nr 442 of 01 July 2020.

The Coordination Committee welcomed the EUWI+ support to developing the new Code of Practice, making permanent new norms for design and construction small scale potable water supply systems with an installed capacity of up to 200 m3 per day, as well as the approval of the Code of Practice and the permanent norms by the Minister of Economy and Infrastructure of Moldova (Ordinance # 162 of 01 September 2020).

The Coordination Committee welcomed the support to the development of the Code of Good Agriculture Prac- tices, approved by Order Nr 160 of the Ministry of Agriculture, Regional Development and Environment on 27 July 2020.

The Coordination Committee acknowledged the work of the Committees of the Dniester and Danube-Prut and Black Sea River Basin Districts and the Commission for the Sustainable Use and Protection of the Dniester River Basin.

The Coordination Committee welcomed the support provided to the development of the RBMP (cycle II 2022- 2027) in the Danube-Prut and Black Sea districts including efforts on water management data structuring and requested to prepare it for adoption by the Government.

The Coordination Committee welcomed the support to the development of a master plan for water supply and sanitation in the Nirnova River sub-basin, including experimenting a pilot inter-locality mechanism for a cus- tomized and accelerated implementation of WSS measures.

The Coordination Committee welcomed the progress of the work of the expert group to update the National Program for the Implementation of the Protocol on Water and Health for the years 2016-2025, which will be extended until 2030 with an updated Action Plan until 2025.

The Coordination Committee was informed by the expert group about the organisation of the Stakeholder Con- sultation Meeting on 26 November 2020 to discuss the proposed revisions to the National Program for the Implementation of the Protocol on Water and Health and proposals for legal amendments with respect to equi- table access to water and sanitation. The Coordination Committee underlined the importance of the adoption of the revised National Programme by early 2021 and invited MARDE and the Ministry of Health, Labour and Social Protection to lead the process of official submission of the programme to the Government.

The Coordination Committee welcomed and supports the efforts made by the EUWI+ to increase institutional and expert capacities, both in form of training of personnel, pilot surveys, various investments (modern equip- ment and field infrastructure) as well as support for the new accreditation of the Environmental Agency's refer- ence laboratory, that ensures and improves the quality monitoring of the surface and ground waters in Moldova;

The Coordination Committee welcomed the activities of the “Ma Implic” project to support water supply in rural LPA in Moldova in 2021-2023"", funded by the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC) and implemented by Skat Consulting Ltd.

The Coordination Committee thanked for the commitment of the EUWI + programme and invited the EU to continue supporting the Republic of Moldova in order to implement the principles of the Water Framework Directive and of Integrated Water Resources Management.

EUWI+ Indicators

Indicator 1: Gender Balance

Total Participants: 54

Total Female Participants: 25

Female participants/total participants of 6th CC meeting of NPD = 46 %

The average of the female participants of the last 6 meetings has been 42 %, which can be seen as a stable percentage.

Indicator 2: Stakeholder Participation

% of Participants by Organisation type

60% - Coordination Committee members 18% - International organisations, NGOs, Public associa- tions and donors 2% - Invited exerts and consultants 20% - EUWI+ Programme implementation team

Participant list divided into 4 categories: 1. Members of the Coordination Committee of the National Policy Dialogue. 2. International Organisations, NGO, Public As- sociations and donor organisations. 3. Invited experts and consultants. 4. EUWI + team.

Indicator 3: Government engagement in the 6th CC meeting of NPD of RM

Number of participants from the relevant government bod- ies engaged in water policy development

Nr. Government body

Invited Partici- pated

1. MARDE 16 15 2. MEI 3 1 3 MoF 2 1 4 SC 1 0 5 MHLSP 2 1 6 MIA 1 0

List developed of relevant ministries for each NPD (derived from invitation list). Percentage worked out of who was invited/who attended the 6th CC meeting of the NPD, available for meeting and trend developed over time. MARDE- Ministry of Agriculture, Regional Devel- opment and Environment (includes authorities under the responsibility of MARDE) MEI – Ministry of Economy and Infrastructure MoF - Ministry of Finance SC – State Chancellery MHLSP – Ministry of Health, Labour and Social Protection MIA - Ministry of Internal Affairs

* The personal data collected is used to report on the communication and dissemination activities of the European Union Water Initiative Plus (EUWI+) project to the European Commission. Occasionally, your contact information may be used to provide you with information or to contact you in connection with the project. This list of participants will be conserved five years after the end of the project to be presented in case an audit. If you have any questions about your data protection rights, contact us by email at the following address: [email protected]. You can also look at our legal notice section on the EUWI+ project website for more information: https://www.euwipluseast.eu/

* Собранные персональные данные используются, чтобы проинформировать Европейскую комиссию о деятельности проекта «Водная инициатива Европейского Союза плюс для стран Восточного партнерства» (EUWI+). Периодически ваша контактная информация может использоваться для распространения новостей о проекте, или чтобы связаться с вами по вопросам проекта. Этот список участников будет храниться 5 лет после завершения проекта, для прохождения аудита. Если у вас возникли вопросы о защите ваших персональных данных, пожалуйста, напишите нам на: [email protected]. Для получения дополнительной информации, вы также можете ознакомиться с нашим разделом о правовых положениях на сайте проекта EUWI+: https://www.euwipluseast.eu/

** We inform you that photos or videos may be taken during the event. They will be used for reporting and communication of the project on our website and social network. If you would like an image to be removed, please contact us at [email protected].

** Информируем вас, что во время мероприятия может проводится фото- и видеосъемка. Полученные материалы будут использованы для отчетности и информирования о деятельности проекта на сайте и в социальных сетях. Если вы хотите, чтобы какое-то изображение было удалено, пожалуйста, сообщите нам, написав на [email protected].

1

LIST OF INVITEES*

СПИСОК ПРИГЛАШЕННЫХ*

EVENT** / МЕРОПРИЯТИЕ**:

DATE / ДАТА: __19 NOVEMBER /19 НОЯБРЯ 2020

N Name -̶ ФИО

Gen der (M/F) -̶ Пол (м/ж)

Organization, position -̶ Организация, должность

Contact Information (e-mail, phone) (facultatif, optional) -̶ Контактная информация (e-mail, телефон) (необязательно)

Note/ Примеч а-ние

1 Dorin Andros M

Ministry of Agriculture, Regional Development and Environment , State Secretary, NPD Focal Point and Chair of the Coordination Committee

[email protected]

2 Gheorghe CROITORU M

Head of Section Policies and Technical Regulations in Construction, Ministry of Economy and Infrastructure

[email protected] [email protected]

* The personal data collected is used to report on the communication and dissemination activities of the European Union Water Initiative Plus (EUWI+) project to the European Commission. Occasionally, your contact information may be used to provide you with information or to contact you in connection with the project. This list of participants will be conserved five years after the end of the project to be presented in case an audit. If you have any questions about your data protection rights, contact us by email at the following address: [email protected]. You can also look at our legal notice section on the EUWI+ project website for more information: https://www.euwipluseast.eu/

* Собранные персональные данные используются, чтобы проинформировать Европейскую комиссию о деятельности проекта «Водная инициатива Европейского Союза плюс для стран Восточного партнерства» (EUWI+). Периодически ваша контактная информация может использоваться для распространения новостей о проекте, или чтобы связаться с вами по вопросам проекта. Этот список участников будет храниться 5 лет после завершения проекта, для прохождения аудита. Если у вас возникли вопросы о защите ваших персональных данных, пожалуйста, напишите нам на: [email protected]. Для получения дополнительной информации, вы также можете ознакомиться с нашим разделом о правовых положениях на сайте проекта EUWI+: https://www.euwipluseast.eu/

** We inform you that photos or videos may be taken during the event. They will be used for reporting and communication of the project on our website and social network. If you would like an image to be removed, please contact us at [email protected].

** Информируем вас, что во время мероприятия может проводится фото- и видеосъемка. Полученные материалы будут использованы для отчетности и информирования о деятельности проекта на сайте и в социальных сетях. Если вы хотите, чтобы какое-то изображение было удалено, пожалуйста, сообщите нам, написав на [email protected].

2

3 Victoria Gratii F Interim head of IWR Department, MARDE, Secretary, Coordinating Committee

[email protected]

4 Serafima Tronza F IWR Department MARDE, superior consultant vice chair of the Coordination Committee

[email protected]

5 Angela Dogotari F

Ministry of Agriculture, Regional Development and Environment, Chief, Land policy service and land improvements Directorate

[email protected]

6 Radu Cazacu M Agency "Apele Moldovei", Deputy Director [email protected]

7 Eugen Belii M Agency "Apele Moldovei", Head of IWRMD [email protected]

8 Mariana CODREANU

F Agency "Apele Moldovei", Deputy Head, Department of Water Resources Management

[email protected]

9 Mihail Grigoras M State Hydrometeorological Service, deputy director interim [email protected]

10 Gavril Gilca M Head of Environmental Quality Monitoring Department, Environmental Agency

[email protected]. [email protected]

11 Marina Lungu F Laboratorul de referinta, head general devision

[email protected]

12 Boris Iurciuc M Head of State information Fund, Subsoil Devision, AGRM

[email protected]

* The personal data collected is used to report on the communication and dissemination activities of the European Union Water Initiative Plus (EUWI+) project to the European Commission. Occasionally, your contact information may be used to provide you with information or to contact you in connection with the project. This list of participants will be conserved five years after the end of the project to be presented in case an audit. If you have any questions about your data protection rights, contact us by email at the following address: [email protected]. You can also look at our legal notice section on the EUWI+ project website for more information: https://www.euwipluseast.eu/

* Собранные персональные данные используются, чтобы проинформировать Европейскую комиссию о деятельности проекта «Водная инициатива Европейского Союза плюс для стран Восточного партнерства» (EUWI+). Периодически ваша контактная информация может использоваться для распространения новостей о проекте, или чтобы связаться с вами по вопросам проекта. Этот список участников будет храниться 5 лет после завершения проекта, для прохождения аудита. Если у вас возникли вопросы о защите ваших персональных данных, пожалуйста, напишите нам на: [email protected]. Для получения дополнительной информации, вы также можете ознакомиться с нашим разделом о правовых положениях на сайте проекта EUWI+: https://www.euwipluseast.eu/

** We inform you that photos or videos may be taken during the event. They will be used for reporting and communication of the project on our website and social network. If you would like an image to be removed, please contact us at [email protected].

** Информируем вас, что во время мероприятия может проводится фото- и видеосъемка. Полученные материалы будут использованы для отчетности и информирования о деятельности проекта на сайте и в социальных сетях. Если вы хотите, чтобы какое-то изображение было удалено, пожалуйста, сообщите нам, написав на [email protected].

3

13 JELEAPOV Ana F Institute of Ecology and Geography [email protected]

14 Iurie Bejan M Institute of Ecology and Geography [email protected]

15 Ion Salaru M National Agency for Public Health, Ministry of Health, Labor and Social Protection

[email protected]

16 Slavic Ciobanu M Apa-Canal Cahul, [email protected]

17 Elena Culighin F National Environmental Center [email protected]

18 Ana Sirbu F Main consultant IWR Department MARDE [email protected]

19 Anna Casuta F Superior consultant IWR Department MARDE

[email protected]

20. Sergiu Tabacaru M Interim chief, Section on relations with regional development institutions

[email protected]

21 Lilia Povar F Agency Apele Moldovei [email protected]

22 VIOREL PANA

M Ministry of Finance, Head of public investments and external financial assistance

[email protected]

23 Eugenia BUSHMACHIU

F Economic Academy /University , Consultant [email protected]

* The personal data collected is used to report on the communication and dissemination activities of the European Union Water Initiative Plus (EUWI+) project to the European Commission. Occasionally, your contact information may be used to provide you with information or to contact you in connection with the project. This list of participants will be conserved five years after the end of the project to be presented in case an audit. If you have any questions about your data protection rights, contact us by email at the following address: [email protected]. You can also look at our legal notice section on the EUWI+ project website for more information: https://www.euwipluseast.eu/

* Собранные персональные данные используются, чтобы проинформировать Европейскую комиссию о деятельности проекта «Водная инициатива Европейского Союза плюс для стран Восточного партнерства» (EUWI+). Периодически ваша контактная информация может использоваться для распространения новостей о проекте, или чтобы связаться с вами по вопросам проекта. Этот список участников будет храниться 5 лет после завершения проекта, для прохождения аудита. Если у вас возникли вопросы о защите ваших персональных данных, пожалуйста, напишите нам на: [email protected]. Для получения дополнительной информации, вы также можете ознакомиться с нашим разделом о правовых положениях на сайте проекта EUWI+: https://www.euwipluseast.eu/

** We inform you that photos or videos may be taken during the event. They will be used for reporting and communication of the project on our website and social network. If you would like an image to be removed, please contact us at [email protected].

** Информируем вас, что во время мероприятия может проводится фото- и видеосъемка. Полученные материалы будут использованы для отчетности и информирования о деятельности проекта на сайте и в социальных сетях. Если вы хотите, чтобы какое-то изображение было удалено, пожалуйста, сообщите нам, написав на [email protected].

4

24 Alina Plesca F

25 Natalia Zgircu F Environmental Agency, Head of the water department,

[email protected]

26 Isabella Neuweg F OECD [email protected]

27 Klaus Leroch M Advisor Water and Sanitation · Austrian Development Agency

[email protected]

28 Vladimir Bodean M Siscani v, mayor Nisporeni

29 Catalin Belecciu M

30 Codreanu Christofor

M Ungheni , deputy mayor

31 KlaraZ F

Members of the committee with the status of permanent guests, representative of international institutions and bilateral donors

32 Constantin Mihailescu

M Mission Environmental Officer / Economic Growth Sector, U.S. Agency for International Development

[email protected]

* The personal data collected is used to report on the communication and dissemination activities of the European Union Water Initiative Plus (EUWI+) project to the European Commission. Occasionally, your contact information may be used to provide you with information or to contact you in connection with the project. This list of participants will be conserved five years after the end of the project to be presented in case an audit. If you have any questions about your data protection rights, contact us by email at the following address: [email protected]. You can also look at our legal notice section on the EUWI+ project website for more information: https://www.euwipluseast.eu/

* Собранные персональные данные используются, чтобы проинформировать Европейскую комиссию о деятельности проекта «Водная инициатива Европейского Союза плюс для стран Восточного партнерства» (EUWI+). Периодически ваша контактная информация может использоваться для распространения новостей о проекте, или чтобы связаться с вами по вопросам проекта. Этот список участников будет храниться 5 лет после завершения проекта, для прохождения аудита. Если у вас возникли вопросы о защите ваших персональных данных, пожалуйста, напишите нам на: [email protected]. Для получения дополнительной информации, вы также можете ознакомиться с нашим разделом о правовых положениях на сайте проекта EUWI+: https://www.euwipluseast.eu/

** We inform you that photos or videos may be taken during the event. They will be used for reporting and communication of the project on our website and social network. If you would like an image to be removed, please contact us at [email protected].

** Информируем вас, что во время мероприятия может проводится фото- и видеосъемка. Полученные материалы будут использованы для отчетности и информирования о деятельности проекта на сайте и в социальных сетях. Если вы хотите, чтобы какое-то изображение было удалено, пожалуйста, сообщите нам, написав на [email protected].

5

33 Diana Celac

F Programme Manager Water and Environment ADA [email protected]

34 Andrei Ursachi

M senior Advisor, "Strengthening the Institutional Framework in the Water and Sanitation Sector" Project

[email protected]

35 Jonathan Hecke

M Skat Consulting Ltd.

[email protected]

36 GUȚU Sergiu

M German Banking Representation in Moldova (KfW)

[email protected]

37 Podoroghin Inga

F UNDP country office, Moldova [email protected]

38 Radu Danii

M Swiss Cooperation Office in the Republic of Moldova

[email protected]

39 Svetlana Duca

F Project Manager ad-interim for Moldova, International secretariat for water, Solidarity Water Europe

[email protected]

40 Amelia Midgley

F Task Team Lead for the Moldova WSS project

[email protected]

* The personal data collected is used to report on the communication and dissemination activities of the European Union Water Initiative Plus (EUWI+) project to the European Commission. Occasionally, your contact information may be used to provide you with information or to contact you in connection with the project. This list of participants will be conserved five years after the end of the project to be presented in case an audit. If you have any questions about your data protection rights, contact us by email at the following address: [email protected]. You can also look at our legal notice section on the EUWI+ project website for more information: https://www.euwipluseast.eu/

* Собранные персональные данные используются, чтобы проинформировать Европейскую комиссию о деятельности проекта «Водная инициатива Европейского Союза плюс для стран Восточного партнерства» (EUWI+). Периодически ваша контактная информация может использоваться для распространения новостей о проекте, или чтобы связаться с вами по вопросам проекта. Этот список участников будет храниться 5 лет после завершения проекта, для прохождения аудита. Если у вас возникли вопросы о защите ваших персональных данных, пожалуйста, напишите нам на: [email protected]. Для получения дополнительной информации, вы также можете ознакомиться с нашим разделом о правовых положениях на сайте проекта EUWI+: https://www.euwipluseast.eu/

** We inform you that photos or videos may be taken during the event. They will be used for reporting and communication of the project on our website and social network. If you would like an image to be removed, please contact us at [email protected].

** Информируем вас, что во время мероприятия может проводится фото- и видеосъемка. Полученные материалы будут использованы для отчетности и информирования о деятельности проекта на сайте и в социальных сетях. Если вы хотите, чтобы какое-то изображение было удалено, пожалуйста, сообщите нам, написав на [email protected].

6

41

Matthias Morgner

M

Team Leader MA IMPLIC – Project on civic engagement in local governance Skat Consulting Ltd

[email protected]

EC and EU Delegation to Moldova

1 Gintautas Baranauskas

M Deputy Head of Operations, the EU Delegation to the Republic of Moldova

[email protected] a.eu

2 Mia Dubois

F Attaché – Project Manager at the Delegation EU Delegation to Moldova

Mia.DUBOIS- [email protected]

EUWI+ implementing partners

3 Matthew Griffiths, M Programme manager, OECD Water programme

[email protected]

4 Alexandre Martusevich,

M Project leader, OECD Water Programme [email protected]

5 Alisher Mamadjanov

M UNECE Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes

[email protected]

6 Alexander Belokurov

M UNECE, Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes

[email protected]

* The personal data collected is used to report on the communication and dissemination activities of the European Union Water Initiative Plus (EUWI+) project to the European Commission. Occasionally, your contact information may be used to provide you with information or to contact you in connection with the project. This list of participants will be conserved five years after the end of the project to be presented in case an audit. If you have any questions about your data protection rights, contact us by email at the following address: [email protected]. You can also look at our legal notice section on the EUWI+ project website for more information: https://www.euwipluseast.eu/

* Собранные персональные данные используются, чтобы проинформировать Европейскую комиссию о деятельности проекта «Водная инициатива Европейского Союза плюс для стран Восточного партнерства» (EUWI+). Периодически ваша контактная информация может использоваться для распространения новостей о проекте, или чтобы связаться с вами по вопросам проекта. Этот список участников будет храниться 5 лет после завершения проекта, для прохождения аудита. Если у вас возникли вопросы о защите ваших персональных данных, пожалуйста, напишите нам на: [email protected]. Для получения дополнительной информации, вы также можете ознакомиться с нашим разделом о правовых положениях на сайте проекта EUWI+: https://www.euwipluseast.eu/

** We inform you that photos or videos may be taken during the event. They will be used for reporting and communication of the project on our website and social network. If you would like an image to be removed, please contact us at [email protected].

** Информируем вас, что во время мероприятия может проводится фото- и видеосъемка. Полученные материалы будут использованы для отчетности и информирования о деятельности проекта на сайте и в социальных сетях. Если вы хотите, чтобы какое-то изображение было удалено, пожалуйста, сообщите нам, написав на [email protected].

7

7 Alexader Zinke M Environment Agency Austria - consortium leader

[email protected]

8 Pierre Henry de Villeneuve

M

INTERNATIONAL OFFICE for WATER Coordinator of institutional support for EU water directives implementation

[email protected]

9 Chloe Dechelette F INTERNATIONAL OFFICE for WATER

[email protected]

10 Soojin Jeong F Green Growth and Global Relations Environment Directorate

[email protected]

11 Svetlana Stirbu F Local representative EUWI+ , result 1 [email protected]

12 Natalia Venderev F Translator

13 Nataly F Translator

Total of women / Всего женщин =25 Total of men / Всего мужчин =29 Total of participants / Всего участников =54

European Union Water Initiative Plus for the Eastern Partnership Countries (EUWI+)

REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA 6th meeting of the National Policy Dialogue on Water

- 19 November 2020, virtual meeting, 09:00 – 12.00 CET

10.00-13.00 Local Time (MD)

Draft agenda Objectives

The meeting will focus on discussing recent progress in modernising national water policy, extending access to water supply and sanitation, as well as enhancing transboundary cooperation. As the EUWI+ programme will soon be completing its implementation, this National Policy Dialogue meeting offers an opportunity to address remaining tasks in conjunction with the priorities and activities of the country-specific work programme, as well as discuss next steps towards ensuring sustainability of results and reflect on further needs and priorities in the water sector beyond 2020.

Proposed date, format and timing

Thursday, 19 November, virtual meeting on ZOOM platform, 09:00-12:00 CET

Working languages: English and Romanian, with simultaneous interpretation

Background

The Republic of Moldova signed an Association Agreement with the European Union in 2014 and is committed to harmonise its water legislation with the EU water acquis. EUWI+ supports Moldova in its journey towards sustainable water management including through technical, financial and capacity building support. The Republic of Moldova is aligning its water sector with the best international practices in order to attract further investments in the water sector, this includes approximation towards ground breaking EU methodologies such as the Water Framework Directive which are aimed at protecting people’s health and the natural environment. Sharing its river basins with Romania, an EU-member state, and Ukraine, transboundary cooperation plays a key role. Over the past 4 years, EUWI+ has supported a combination of policy reform and capacity development at both the national and basin scale, with activities tailored to ensure sustainability of the results.

Draft agenda

Time Activity 10.00-10.15 Opening statements (Facilitated by MARDE)

15’ - Statement by Ministry (State Secretary & National Focal Point, Ministry of

Agriculture, Regional Development and Environment (MARDE)) – Dorin Andros(5 mins)

- Statement by the Delegation of the European Union to the Republic of Moldova (5 mins)

- Introduction by EUWI+: Alexander Zinke (UBA) (5 mins) Session 1: 10.15-11.00

Modernising national water policy and governance (facilitated by MARDE and OECD)

45’ This session will examine recent progress in modernising national water policy and governance and discuss future priorities. - EU support to reform of water policies – recent achievments (ppt – Victoria

Gratii (MARDE) (10 mins) - Upgrading the water monitoring capacities for SW and GW bodies (ppt UBA)

Alexander Zinke (10 mins) Discussion (25 minutes)

Session 2 11.00-11.40

RBMP Update: facilitating cross-sectoral and transboundary cooperation (facilitated by MARDE and UNECE)

40’ This session will review the current status of transboundary cooperation, discuss the benefits of such cooperation for the riparians, based on concrete examples, and identify further steps to increase bilateral and multilateral cooperation on transboundary waters both in technical and political terms in the light of WFD, Water Convention and SDGs. - EUWI+ scene setting presentation (5 mins UNECE) Alisher Mamadzhanov - AAM overview of transboundary progress (10 mins) Radu Cazacu Agency

“Apele Moldovei” - Danube-Prut & Black Sea RBMP cycle II ready for adoption and improved water

related data management and knowledge sharing Pierre HENRY de VILLENEUVE (OiEau 5 mins) and Iurii Bejan, RBMP team leader at OIKUMEINA

Discussion (20 minutes) Session 3 11.40-12.25

Domestic water supply and sanitation: adopting new plans and regulations and addressing the implementation challenge (facilitated by MARDE and OECD)

45’ This session will briefly overview new strategic and mid-term plans, and regulations adopted with support from European Union, and discuss the following policy questions: (i) how to facilitate implementation of the adopted plans at the national and basin levels? (ii) what complementary regulatory, institutional and financial support measure are required to facilitate the development of small-scale WSS systems in rural areas? iii) how the COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the links between WSS and health and what are the lessons learned? - Updated National WSS Strategy and new mid-term action plan and work on

new norms (ppt MARDE & Min Economy and Infrastructure,10 mins) Serafima Tronza, Gheorghe Croitoru

- National Programme to implement the UNECE-WHO/Europe Protocol on Water and Health Ion Salaru , Serafima Tronza (National Agency of Public Health & MARDE 8 mins)

- The Nirnova experience: how to customise WSS measures at inter-municipal scale, Pierre HENRY de VILLENEUVE (OiEau 7 mins), and Svetlana DUCA, Project Manager ad-interim for Moldova, Solidarity Water Europe

- Discussion (20 minutes)

Session 4 12:25-12:45

Exchange of experience with Development Partners (Facilitated by MARDE)

20’ - Development partners and project representatives will be invited to provide updates on ongoing work in Moldova

- Activities of the Ma Implic project to support water supply in rural LPA in Moldova in 2021-2023"- Matthias Morgner (MA IMPLIC – Project on civic engagement in local governance)

Session 5 12.45-13.00

Next steps towards successful completion of EUWI+, outlook beyond 2021 and closing remarks (Facilitated by MARDE)

15’ - Remarks by EUWI+ (UBA) Alexander Zinke - Remarks by EU DEL to the Republic of Moldova - Closing remarks by Ministry (MARDE) Dorin Andros

2 nd

Meeting of the Coordination Committee

of the National Policy Dialogue on Integrated Water Resources Management

SUMMARY RECORD

(24 th

Meeting within the EUWI National Policy Dialogue

on Integrated Water Resources Management)

17 November 2016

Summit Events & Conference Center

(Red Meeting Room, 1 st Floor, Tighina St., 49/3, Kishinev)

Meeting Objectives: To officially launch in the Republic of Moldova the implementation of the

EUWI+ Project for the Eastern Partnership (EaP) countries; to discuss, and inform the Coordination

Committee of the National Policy Dialogue on Integrated Water Resources Management in the

Republic of Moldova about, the main outcomes related to water resources management; review the

activities implemented by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD

GREEN Action Programme Task Force) and other implementing partners within the European Union

Water Initiative (EUWI); and present other relevant initiatives by other stakeholders.

Participants

The meeting brought together about 45 participants: members of the Coordination Committee of the

National Policy Dialogue on Integrated Water Resources Management; central government

representatives with responsibilities in the aforementioned areas; representatives of the civil society,

international organizations, and bilateral donors.

The list of participants is attached to this Summary Record. The meeting of the Coordination

Committee of the National Policy Dialogue on Integrated Water Resources Management proceeded as

per Agenda attached to this Summary Record.

The meeting was chaired by Mr. Victor Morgoci, Vice-Minister of Environment. The Vice-Minister

mentioned in his opening remarks that the European Union Water Initiative National Policy Dialogue

has been a mechanism the Republic of Moldova has been using since 2006 to facilitate efficient water

resources management in the country. The Republic of Moldova has assumed stringent obligations to

implement the provisions of the European acquis as required by the EU Association Agreement, having

thereby undertaken to align its national water-related legislation and standards with acquis

communautaire of the European Union where water is one of the most regulated areas.

Mr. Henno Putnik, representative of the European Union Delegation to the Republic of Moldova,

welcomed the meeting participants and mentioned the goals and context of cooperation between the

European Union and the Republic of Moldova.

Opening remarks were also made by a representative of the United Nations Economic Commission for

Europe (UNECE), strategic partner supporting the NPD process; representative of the Organisation for

Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), strategic partner for the water supply and sanitation

component and economic and financial dimensions of integrated water resources management; and

representatives of the MS Consortium responsible the EUWI+ project implementation in the Republic

of Moldova.

2

Discussions

Meeting of the Steering Committee of the National Policy Dialogue on Integrated Water Resources

Management was structured around two issue sessions.

Session 1. The session introduced the EUWI+ (European Union Water Initiative Plus) project for the

Eastern Partnership countries which proposes to assist the Republic of Moldova with the

implementation of the Water Framework Directive and other related directives, as well as provisions of

multilateral agreements Moldova is a party to, and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs to 2030).

Thus, it was an official launch of the EUWI+ project in the Republic of Moldova which will contribute

to achieving three general outcomes:

- Outcome 1: Improved legal and regulatory framework harmonized with the principles of the Water Framework Directive, integrated water resources management, and multi-lateral

environmental agreements the Republic of Moldova is a party to;

- Outcome 2: River basin management plans implemented according to the EU principles; - Outcome 3: Lessons learnt shared with, and disseminated to, stakeholders.

The Ministry of Environment representatives presented priorities and needs in the area of integrated

water resources management and water supply and sanitation based on the obligations to implement

provisions of the European acquis as required by the EU Association Agreement.

Session 2. The session presented preliminary findings and recommendations of the Project on

Improving the Economic Regulatory System for Water Supply and Sanitation in the Republic of

Moldova supported by the OECD, as well as preliminary recommendations regarding setting up a sound

economic regulatory system for the water supply and sanitation sector, including assessment of

investment programmes affordability and of the need to support vulnerable population. Summary of the

discussions at the expert workshop held on 16 November 2016 was presented briefly.

Meeting Conclusions and Recommendations

Members of the Coordination Committee of the National Policy Dialogue on Integrated Water

Resources Management and the meeting invitees:

1. Welcomed the official launch of the EUWI+ project in the Republic of Moldova and expressed their gratitude to the European Union and development partners for their continuous support to the

water sector in the Republic of Moldova.

2. Pointed out that the Ministry of Environment should nominate its representative in the Steering Committee of the EUWI+ project.

3. Supported, as a priority item, the proposal to continue and complete in 2017 under the EUWI+ project the ongoing water projects led by the OECD and launched under the previous project (the

EUWI EECCA component).

4. Agreed to present by 23 December 2016 their proposals to the work plan for the entire period of the EUWI+ project implementation in the Republic of Moldova, including a dedicated plan for local

capacity development, in line with the scope of the project outlined in the Description of the Action

(DoA), and taking into account mandates and area of expertise of implementing partners. The

proposals should be submitted to the Ministry of Environment (to Ms. Diana Celac, NPD

Coordination Committee Executive Secretary, at: [email protected]).

5. Proposed to organise a meeting in February 2017 to prioritise proposals and draft Work Plan for the entire period of project implementation in the Republic of Moldova (including a dedicated plan for

3

local capacity development and completion of the ongoing OECD projects) and submit it for formal

approval by the Ministry of Environment and other relevant bodies, as well as by the Steering

Committee of the EUWI+ project.

6. Generally supported the recommendations of the Project on Improving the Economic Regulatory System for Water Supply and Sanitation in the Republic of Moldova and agreed that eventual

comments would be presented in writing by 10 December 2016. The comments should be sent to

the Ministry of Environment (to Ms. Diana Celac, NPD Coordination Committee Executive

Secretary, at: [email protected]).

7. Invited the OECD to complete, under the EUWI+, its ongoing water projects launched under the previous project (EUWI EECCA component) according to the schedule envisaged in the respective

terms of reference, and submit draft final reports for discussion at the next NPD Coordination

Committee meeting.

8. Invited the stakeholders in the Republic of Moldova to support the implementation partners during implementation of the above projects, from their inception stage to the agreed work plan

implementation, reporting, and communication and dissemination of outcomes.

9. Agreed that next meeting of the Coordination Committee of the National Policy Dialogue on Integrated Water Resources Management would be organized in March–April 2017.

/signature/

Victor Morgoci

Vice-Minister of Environment

(Prepared by Ms. Diana Celac, Deputy Head, Water Management Directorate, Ministry of

Environment; Executive Secretary, Coordination Committee of the National Policy Dialogue on

Integrated Water Resources Management

The Summary Record was prepared on three pages, with attachments:

- List of Participants, 5 pages - Agenda, 3 pages)

4

2 nd

Meeting of the Coordination Committee

of the National Policy Dialogue on Integrated Water Resources Management

(24 th Meeting within the EUWI National Policy Dialogue on Integrated Water Resources Management)

17 November 2016, Kishinev

Summit Events & Conference Center, Tighina St., 49/3, Red Meeting Room

No. Institution Full Name Title Contract Data

Signa- ture

NPD Coordination Committee

1 Ministry of Environment Victor Morgoci Vice-Minister of Environment

2 Ministry of Environment Inga Podoroghin State Secretary of the Ministry

3 Ministry of Environment Diana Celac Deputy Head, Water Management Directorate, Executive Secretary of the Coordination Committee

4 Ministry of Environment Andrei Ursache Head, Water Resources, Soils, Subsoils Division, Natural Resources and Biodiversity Directorate

5 Apele Moldovei Agency Igor Hincu Director

6 Apele Moldovei Agency Radu Cazacu, Mariana Codreanu

Deputy Director Deputy Head, Water Resources Management Department

7 Apele Moldovei Agency Adrian Furculita Head, Capital Investment and Project Implementation Division

8 State Hydrometeorological Service

Mihail Roibu Director

9 State Hydrometeorological Service

Valeriu Cazac Head, Hydrology Directorate

10 State Environmental Inspectorate

Svetlana Maruseac Head, Water Resources and Air Inspection Division

11 Geology and Mineral Resources Agency

Boris Iurciuc Head, Subsoils Information State Fund Division

12 Ecology and Geography Institute

Iurii Bejan Deputy Director for Research

13 State Chancellery Daria Stratu Chief Consultant, Policy and Strategic Planning Coordination Directorate

14 Ministry of Internal Affairs Vitali Mutaf Deputy Head, Civil Protection Directorate

15 Ministry of Economy Calin Guritenco Senior Consultant, Policy Analysis, Monitoring, and Assessment Directorate

16 Ministry of Finance Iurie Nastas Head, National Economy

5

Finance Division, National Economy Finance and Capital Expenditure Directorate

17 Ministry of Health Liliana Carp Environmental Health Supervision Division, National Centre for Public Health

18 Ministry of Regional Development and Construction

Silvia Dragomir Chief Consultant, Directorate General for Regional Development

19 Ministry of Agriculture and Food Industry

Vasile Nemtanu Consultant, Land Improvement Directorate

20 Ministry of Labor, Social Protection, and Family

Cristina Ursachi Consultant, Social Protection Policy Directorate

21 Ministry of Labor, Social Protection, and Family

Ina Scaticailov Senior Consultant, Social Protection Policy Directorate

22 National Statistics Bureau Liudmila Lungu Head, Environmental Statistics Service, Agricultural and Environmental Statistics Directorate

23 National Energy Regulatory Agency of the Republic of Moldova

Elena Breahna Heat Supply, Water Supply and Sanitation Division

24 Congress of Local Authorities of Moldova

Viorel Furdui Executive Director

25 Moldova Apa-Canal Association

Iuri Nistor Executive Director

26 Zoology Institute, Academy of Sciences of Moldova

Elena Zubcov DSc in Biology, Research Professor

27 Hydrometeorological Service

Natalia Zgireu Deputy Head, DMCM

28 Ministry of Environment Mihail Zonta Head, E-Transformation

29 Ministry of Environment Vallet Lyrille International Expert

30 State Environmental Inspectorate

Svetlana Maruseac Head, Water Resources and Air Inspection Division

31 Ecology and Geography Institute

Petru Bacal Head, Laboratory

Representatives of International Organizations, Bilateral Donors

1 EU Delegation to Moldova Henno Putnik Project Manager

2 EU HLA to the Republic of Moldova (RM)

Svetlana Zhekova EU HLA on Environment

3 EU HLA Mission to the RM Cristina Cotofana Assistant to the EU HLA on Environment

4 Embassy of Germany in Moldova

Ulrich Kleppmann Head, Economic Cooperation Department

5 KfW in Moldova Sergiu Gutu Head of Office

6

6 Swiss Development Cooperation

Andrei Cantemir Project Manager

7 ApaSan Jonathan Hecke Coordinator

8 Austrian Development Agency

Gerhard Schaumberger

Director

9 Austrian Development Agency

Daniela Petrusevschi Project Manager

10 Austrian Development Agency

Constantin Mihailescu Environmental Expert

11 GIZ Moldova Valentina Plesca Project Manager

12 European Investment Bank Antonio Castillo Head of EIB Representation to Moldova

EUWI + Inception Mission Team

1 Austrian Environmental Agency (UBA)

Michael Sutter EUWI+ Project Manager

2 Austrian Environmental Agency (UBA)

Tim Turner EUWI+ Project Technical Coordinator

3 Austrian Environmental Agency (UBA)

Robert Konecny Senior Expert for GW/Desk Officer

4 Austrian Environmental Agency (UBA)

Cristina Trimbacher Quality Manager Accreditation Testing Laboratory

5 Austrian Development Agency (ADA)

Klaus Leroch Water and Sanitation Adviser

6 International Office of Water (IOWater), France

Philippe Sennhauser Project Manager/Integrated Water Resources Management

7 International Office of Water (IOWater), France

Ynona Videnina Expert on Participative Approach for RBMPs

8 UNECE Peep Mardiste Regional Coordinator of the EU Water Initiative National Policy

9 OECD Alexandre Martoussevitch

Project Manager

10 EUWI+ Project Victor Bujor Local Coordinator

This project is funded by the European Union

The second meeting of the Coordination Committee of the National Policy Dialogue on Integrated Water Resources Management in the Republic of Moldova

(the twenty-forth NPD meeting under the EUWI), EUWI Plus Project Kick-off Meeting Summit Events & Conference Center, Tighina 49/3 St. (Sala Rosie), 17 November 2016

List of Participants (second part of Kick-meeting)

Beneficiaries of the Republic of Moldova

# Name Position Organization E-mail/phone number

1 Vitali Mutaf

Deputy Head of department of Civil Protection

Ministry of Internal Affairs, Service of Civil protection and Emergency Situations

[email protected] 079604283

2 Svetlana Maruseac

Head of water and air inspection section

State Ecological Inspectorate

[email protected] (022) 22 69 22

3 Boris Iurciuc

Head of section

Agency for Geology and Mineral Resources

[email protected] (022) 75 06 36

List of participants, 17-18 November 2016, Chisinau

Page 2 of 4

4

Andrei Ursache

Head of unit soils, subsoil and water

Ministry of Environment

[email protected] 022 204 513

5

Mihail Gonta

Head of e-transformation section

Ministry of Environment

[email protected] 022 204 533

6 Mariana Codreanu

Deputy head of Water Management department

State Water Agency “Apele Moldovei”

[email protected] 022 28 09 28

7

Natalia Zgircu

Deputy head of Env.Monitoring Quality Department

State Hydrometerological Service

[email protected] 022 762 466

8

Iurie Bejan

Head of geography of landscapes laboratory

Institute of Ecology and Geography

[email protected]

9

Vasile Nemteanu

Consultant, Department of land Amelioration

Ministry of Agriculture and Food Industry

[email protected]

10

Liliana Carp

Medic igienist

National Center for Public Health

[email protected] 022 574-538

11 Adrian Furculita

Head of section for capital investments and project implementation

State Water Agency “Apele Moldovei”

[email protected] 069314219

12

Breahna Elena

Energy, WS/WS section

National Agency for Regulation in Energetics

[email protected] 069006209

13

Iuirie Nistor

Director

AMAC

List of participants, 17-18 November 2016, Chisinau

Page 3 of 4

14

Constantin Mihailescu

Env. Expert

NGO “INGUA-MOLDOVA”

[email protected] 069115132

15

Hincu Igor

Agency “Apele Moldovei”

Director

[email protected]

16

Inga Pororoghin

State secretary MoEnv

[email protected]

17

Diana Celac

Deputy head of water management

MoEnv

[email protected] 022 204 530

18

Daniela Petrusevschi

Environment and water programme manager

Austrian Development Agency

[email protected]. 022 79 93 70

19

Dragomir Silvia

Senior consultant

Ministry of Regional Development and Construction

[email protected] 022 204 543

20

Alexandru Tabacaru

Head of division

SE Basin Water Management Authority

[email protected] 022 28 0644

21

Valeriu Cazac

Head of hydrological division

State Hydrometerological Service

[email protected]

22

Radu Cazacu

Deputy director

Agency “Apele Moldovei”

radu.cazacu@apele. Gov.md

List of participants, 17-18 November 2016, Chisinau

Page 4 of 4

22 09 00

23

Cyrille Valett project manager WSS project ADA/SDC [email protected]

EU Delegation to the Republic of Moldova/EUWIplus mission team

24 Mr Henno Putnik

Attaché/Project Manager

EUD

[email protected]

25 Mr Klaus Leroch

Water and Sanitation Adviser

ADA

[email protected]

26 Mr Peep Mardiste Regional coordinator, EUWI National Policy Dialogues UNECE

[email protected]

27 Mr Alexandre Martoussevitch Project Manager, Environment Directorate OECD

[email protected] 28 Mr Michael Sutter

ISD, Head of Asia, Africa and Americas, Key account for IFIs

UBA [email protected]

29 Mr Robert Konecny Senior Expert for SW/Desk Officer UBA

[email protected]

30 Ms Cristina Trimbacher Quality Manager Accreditation Testing Laboratory UBA

[email protected]

31 Mr Philippe Sennhauser Project Manager – Integrated Water Resources Management OIEau

[email protected]

32 Ms Yunona Videnina Expert on participative approach for RBMPs OIEau

[email protected]

33 Mr Timothy Turner Technical Project Leader EUWI Plus Project

[email protected]

34 Mr Victor Bujac Project Coordinator for Moldova

EUWI Plus Project

[email protected]

The second meeting of the Coordination Committee of the National Policy Dialogue on Integrated Water Resources Management in

the Republic of Moldova (the twenty-forth NPD meeting under the EUWI)

17 November, 2016

Summit Events & Conference Center, Tighina 49/3 St., (Sala Rosie / Red Room)

Objectives of the meeting

 To officially kick start implementation in Moldova of the EUWI+ for Easter Partnership countries project.

 To discuss main outputs and results of the on-going work on water management carried out by the OECD GREEN Action Programme Task Force and other partners under the EUWI to inform the NPD since its previous meeting in May 2016 (sessions 2-4).

 Other stakeholders will also be invited to present their related initiatives. The meeting participants will be invited to discuss follow up and future activities under the NPD.

AGENDA

8.45 – 9.00 Registration

9.00 - 9.35

Opening and welcoming statements

- Mr. Victor Morgoci, Deputy Minister, Ministry of Environment - Welcoming

remarks and opening of the meeting

- Henno Putnik, EU Delegation to the Republic of Moldova - Goals and context of cooperation with the European Union

- Representative of the EU MS Consortium – General presentation of the Mission objectives

- Peep Mardiste, UNECE - Inception phase content and outputs

- Mr. Alexander Martusevich, OECD/GREEN AP Task Force, Water Programme - Overview of the NPD and presentation of the meeting agenda

Session 1 EUWI+ for EaP countries: High-Level Kick-off in Moldova

09:35 –11:30

Moldova signed Association Agreement with the EU. Inter alia the agreement envisages transposition of the EU water acquis into the national legislation and regulation in Moldova. The EUWI+ for EaP project aims to assist Moldova in implementing the WFD in connection with other water related directives, as well as MEA and SDGs. This special session will officially kick-start the implementation of the EUWI+ project in Moldova.

 Presentation of the Action (EUWI+ for EaP countries) – by International project implementing partners

 Feedback from key water institutions in Moldova (relevant Departments of the MoENV and Water Agency „Apele Moldovei”, and State Hyrdometeopological

Service)

 Q&A followed by discussion

Session 2 Economic regulation of water supply and sanitation in Moldova

11:30 –13:10

Upon request from the NPD Chair, OECD is implementing a project to assist the Government of Moldova in establishing a sound economic regulatory system for WSS, including assessment of affordability of investment programmes and of need for targets support to vulnerable households. Session 2 will discuss draft Recommendations of the project.

 The project on establishing a sound economic regulatory system for WSS in Moldova:

- Introduction - Alexander Martusevich, OECD / GREEN AP Task Force Water

programme;

- Presentation of draft Recommendations – Alexander Poghossian, APC, and

Giel Verbeeck, TreeVelop

- Summary of discussion at the expert workshop on 16 Nov., 2016 - Alexander

Poghossian, APC, and Giel Verbeeck, TreeVelop

 Q&A followed by discussion

13:10-13:30 Other updates, decisions and way forward

Decisions by the NPD Coordination Council and closure of the meeting

13:30 Lunch break (offered by organizers)

European Union Water Initiative Plus for the Eastern Partnership (EUWI+)

Inception mission

17 November, 2016

Summit Events & Conference Center, Tighina 49/3 St. (Sala Rosie / Red Room)

14:45 –16:00

Shared overall vision for the project

 Countries reflection (comments to the DoA and the Log-frame)

 Overall priority issues of the country

 Vision for 4 years of cooperation

16:00 – 17:30

Project management aspects

 Project structure and responsibilities

o National Project steering group

 Project administrative issues

o E.g. Project registration

o Working rooms for representatives

o Open information / transparency

17:30 – 18:00 Q&A, discussion and concluding remarks