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

Marianne.richter@uba.deSection 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“