seminar on the globalizationofthe convention and the ... · and the roleof international...
TRANSCRIPT
For our Environment
The Espoo Convention and the SEA‐Protocol in PracticeGerman Experiences
6th Working Group on the Espoo‐Convention and the SEA Protocol
Seminar on the globalization of the Convention and the Protocol and the role of international financial institutionsGeneva, 9 November 2016
Marianne Richter/Section I 3.5 "Sustainable Spatial Development, Environmental Assessments"/German Environmental Agency, Dessau
1. Benefits of Espoo Convention and SEA-Protocol –What is it good for ?
2. The Espoo Procedure – How does it work ?
3. Challenges – Which questions may occur?
4. Solutions for main questions (examples)
5. Conclusion
CONTENTS
2
Espoo Convention and SEA-Protocol – Main content
Main contents: in case of a plan or project which maycause transboundary impacts ► provide equivalentpossibility to participate in the EIA/SEA of the decisionmaking procedure to public of affected state and soundpossibility to environmental authorities of that state
describe a simple and clear BINDING procedure causes duties for authorities of state of origin and
affected state
Espoo Convention and SEA-Protocol - Benefit
facilitate and speed up private investments andpublic infrastructure projects in state of origin
protect environment and public health of affected state may avoid conflicts between states
1. Benefits of Espoo Convention and SEA-Protocol – What is it good for?
3
Geographical situation• several neighbour states
on the continent andconnected by waterbodies
Transboundary cases• projects and plans regularly
with all states in German vicinity
Examples• German Federal Traffic
Infrastructure Plan 2015 – 2030
• Polish Programm on Nuclear Energy 2011
4
1. Benefits – Examples
5
Decision on application of Espoo(Art. 2.2, 2.5)
Notification (Art. 3.1)
Participation of authorities and publicof affected state (Art. 4.2)
Party of Origin
Final decision on project (Art. 6)
Monitoring* (Art. 7)
Affected Party
2. The Espoo Procedure – How does it work ?- Main steps of the Espoo Convention
Confirmation of receipt (Art. 3.3)
Declaration on participation (Art. 3.3)Transmission of EIA
documentation (Art. 4)
Consultation among Parties* (Art. 5)
*if required in specific case
3. Challenges of transboundary EIA/SEAWhich questions may occur ? (1)
National legislation
Competence/responsibi-lities of authorities
Tradition andculture
State
Region RegionRegion
Differences among states:
Non-EIA-relatedproblems
6
• Competence: Authority which is responsible according to national legislation
• Field of application: Any decision making procedure with EIA/SEA*
• Significance: hardly to define (in practice roughly comparing againstthresholds of Party of orign)
• Starting point of transboundary EIA: scoping phase (if possible)
• Public participation in affected state: according to rules of Party of Origin: time frame, letter or e-mail
according to rules of affected Party: announcement, display , collection of comments• Translation*:
Party of Origin covers all costs : PoO regularly transmitts translated documents
affectecd Party transmitts comments etc. in own language
• Time Frames: time frames of PoO (under condition of translated documents)
• Financial implications: adminstrativ costs, beared by proponent
• Formats (as part of agreement): helpful to avoid missunderstandings
* under prerequisite that equivalence and reciprocity is roughly fulfilled
4. Solutions for main questions– Principles of good practice: lesssons learned
7
German-PolishAgreement
Decision making auth.(regional level)
German Ministryof Environment(national level)
Ministry ofEnv. (State Saxony)
General Environment Directorate(national level)
Warszaw
Berlin
Dresden
Responsibleauthorities ondifferent levels ofhierarchy
Legende: Competent tocarry out trans-boundary EIA steps
2. Solutions for main questionsExample: Competent authorities (1)
8
Germany: authority on regional level responsible
Poland: High level national authority responsible
Decision making auth(regional level).
German Ministryof Environment(national level)
Ministry of Env.(State Saxony)
Warszaw
General Environment Directorate(national level)
Berlin
Dresden
Solution:Send copies toauthorties of all levels
German-PolishAgreement
4. Solutions for main questionsExample: Competent authorities (2)
National law:Responsibleauthorities on different levels ofhierarchy
9
• Competence: Authority which is responsible according to national legislation
• Field of application: Any decision making procedure with EIA/SEA*
• Significance: hardly to define (in practice roughly comparing againstthresholds of Party of Orign)
• Starting point of transboundary EIA: scoping phase (if possible)
• Public participation in affected state: according to rules of Party of origin: time frame, letter or e-mail
according to rules of affected Party: announcement, display , collection of comments• Translation*:
Party of Origin covers all costs : PoO regularly transmitts translated documents
affectecd Party transmitts comments etc. in own language
• Time Frames: time frames of PoO (under condition of translated documents)
• Financial implications: adminstrativ costs, beared by proponent
• Formats (as part of agreement): helpful to avoid missunderstandings
* under prerequisite that equivalence and reciprocity is roughly fulfilled
4. Solutions for main questions– Principles of good practice: lessons learned
10
German-PolishAgreement
National law:Different time frames forpublic participation.
German project:Time frame acc. German law6 weeks
Comments within6 weeks by• German public• Polish public
Comments within3 weeks by• Polish public• German public
Polish project:Time frame acc. Polish law:3 weeks
Solution:
• apply regulation ofparty of Origin on both sides forprocedural relevant items
4. Solutions for main questionsExample: Time frames for public particpation
11
Problem: Different views on project and its possible impacts
German-Polish Agreement provides for• Early participation (scoping)
• Direct contacts between EIA/SEA authority and authorities of other state(e.g. Scoping)
• Consultation
• Information on „probable decision“
• Post-project analysis (including pre-project analysis)
• [Public: right to appeal at a German court (public)]
• Dispute settlement on general questions:
- German-Polish Governmental Group „Transboundary EIA and SEA“
*red = most relevant to settle different views on features of plan/project and impacts
Information on Receipt….….…
Declaration on Participation….….
Notification….….…
12
4. Solutions for main questions– Helpful steps to overcome different views
Transboundary EIA and SEA are effective tools todevelop or plan and realize projects which may haveimpacts on other states in an atmosphere of goodneigbourhood.
A sound transboundary EIA or SEA procedure mayavoid conflicts and contribute to a speedy decisionmaking procedure.
Espoo Convention and SEA-Protocol can be appliedon a voluntary base until these instrument are openfor accession.
13
4. Conclusion
Thank you for yourattentionMarianne Richter
[email protected] I 3.5 "Sustainable Spatial Development, Environmental Assessments"German Environment Agency
www.uba.de/
14MR
15
NOx
humidity
Projectnoise
Germany Poland
notification required
► comparision of concentration againstGerman thresholds
► hint: NOTIFY EVEN IN CASE OF ANY UNCERTAINTY
notification reasonable
German-Polish-Agreement:„Transboundary EIA requiredfor any project, which mayhave significant adversetransboundary impacts and forwhich the state of origincarries out an EIA“
4. Solutions for main questionsExample: Definition of „Significance“