Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context

(Espoo, 1991)

UNECE Secretariatwww.unece.org/env/eia

Moscow, 21 September 2007

 

Espoo Convention

• Espoo Convention and its status

• Transboundary EIA procedure• Bilateral & multilateral

agreements• Examples of Transboundary

EIAs

 

Espoo Convention

• Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context

• Negotiated under auspices of UNECE, and UNECE provides Secretariat

• Adopted in 1991 in Espoo, Finland

• Entered into force in 1997 (16 Parties)

• Now 41 Parties, including the European Community

 

SignedRatified, etc.Ratified Convention & 1st AmendmentRatified Convention & both amendments

 

Transboundary EIA procedure

1. Application of the Convention (Art. 2.2, 2.5 / App. I+II)

2. Notification (Art. 3.1)

3. Confirmation of Participation (Art. 3.3)

4. Transmittal of Information (Art. 3.6)

5. Preparation of EIA Documentation (Art. 4 / App. II)

6. …

 

Transboundary EIA procedure6. Distribution of EIA Documentation – for

participation of authorities & public of affected Party (Art. 4.2)

7. Public participation (Art. 3.8)

8. Consultation between Parties (Art. 5)

9. Final Decision (Art. 6.1)

10.Transmittal of Final Decision Documentation (Art. 6.2)

11.(Post-project Analysis (Art. 7.1 / App. V) – optional)

 

Bilateral & Multilateral Cooperation

• Article 2.9: The provisions of this Convention shall not affect the right of particular Parties to implement, by bilateral or multilateral agreement where appropriate, more stringent measures than those of this Convention.

• Article 8: The Parties may continue existing or enter into new bilateral or multilateral agreements or other arrangements in order to implement their obligations under this Convention and under any of its protocols to which they are a Party. Such agreements or other arrangements may be based on the elements listed in Appendix VI.

 

Examples of Transboundary EIA

Oil pipeline Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan, Azerbaijan-Georgia-Turkey

Danube Bridge, Romania & Bulgaria

Multipurpose hydropower, Croatia

Renovation of power plant, Estonia

Nuclear power plant, Finland

Flood prevention, Finland

Power line, Finland

Under-sea pipeline, Italy-Croatia

Kyrgyz-Chinese paper mill

Aggregates dredging in English Channel

 

Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline

• Azerbaijan-Georgia-Turkey• Only Azerbaijan Party to

Convention• Special agreement was

ratified by Parliaments of all 3 countries

• Public participation/disclosure in all 3 countries (though not focussed on transboundary issues)

• Project proponent paid for all aspects and received about 3,000 comments

• Cost for this (& related project): US$1,500,000

 

Bridge over River Danube• Between towns of Vidin (Bulgaria) and Calafat (Romania)• Agreement between Governments for bridge construction, with joint

EIA• Joint Working Group on environmental problems• Project Implementation & Management Units in competent

authorities• Proponent: Bulgarian Ministry of Transport & Communications• Public participation in each country• EIA in English, Bulgarian & Romanian• Costs covered by competent authorities• 17 comments received during 2 public hearings

 

Multipurpose hydropower system on River Drava

• Proponent: Croatian Power Board• Affected Party: Hungary• EIA summary sent in English and other relevant

documentation sent in Croatian• Translation by Hungarian Ministry of Environment &

Water• Hungary allowed 60 days for comments on first

phase; organized a public hearing with participation of Croatian delegates in second phase

• Hungary produced 4000 booklets with questionnaire; received 25 written comments + oral comments

• Hungarian costs: €6,000 for the booklet, €10,000 for public hearing

• Difficulties included 10,000 pages of documentation, and long process

Photo: Arno Mohl

 

Narva Power Programme• Proponent: Estonian Energy Ltd.,

partly owned by Estonian Ministry of Economy & Communication

• Affected Parties: Finland & Russian Federation (not Party)

• Bilateral agreement with Finland• Proponent provided English

translation of documentation• Finnish Ministry of Environment

sent draft EIA documentation to experts, environmental authorities & NGOs

• One month allowed for comments• Proponent received back

summary of comments

 

Nuclear Power Plant (“Loviisa-3”), Finland

• Proponent: Fortum Power & Heat Oy

• Affected Party: Russian Federation (not Party)

• Proponent produced 100 booklets in Russian (€1,500)

• NGO in Russia organized public participation (€500)

• 60 days allowed for comments – 18 received

 

Flood prevention dredging

• Proponent: Lapland Regional Environment Centre

• Finland & Sweden bilateral agreement on frontier River Tornio

• Finnish-Swedish Commission is competent authority

• Project planned in co-operation with Sweden

• Proponent translated full EIA documentation

• 17 weeks in total for public participation in Sweden

 

Power line from Muhos-Torneå, Finland

• Proponent: Finnish Power Company, Fingrid Oyj

• Close to Swedish border• Alternative routes considered• Proponent translated EIA

documentation into Swedish• 17 weeks in total for public

participation in Sweden• Public participation cost

€8,000-10,000• Swedish (2nd language of

Finland) used in all communications

©Photo courtesy of US Department of Energy

 

Undersea methane pipeline

• Joint Croatian-Italian private project

• Joint EIA and Joint Body• Information on the project

in the ‘other’ country provided to the public

• Proponent produced all documentation in Croatian and Italian

• Comments from public only on project in ‘own’ country

 

Paper mill, Kyrgyzstan• Proponent: Chinese Company

“Complant” and Ministry of Foreign Trade & Industry, Kyrgyzstan (later a Party)

• Affected Party: Kazakhstan (later a Party)

• Trilateral (Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan) treaty on environmental protection includes obligation for joint state environmental expertise for projects with transboundary effects

• One NGO from Kazakhstan and one NGO from Kyrgyzstan

• Kazakhstan NGO organized NGO forum meeting and collected 58 comments

• All documentation in Russian, but poorly translated from Chinese

• Chinese representatives not open to public participation

 

Dredging for aggregates in the English Channel, UK

• Proponent: Volker Dredging Ltd• Affected Parties: Belgium, Denmark

& Netherlands (Parties), France & Germany (Parties later)

• Proponent translated full EIA documentation, including non-technical summary, into Danish, French, German and Dutch

• 16 weeks in total for consultations• Comments from Dutch & French

competent authorities only• Translation & copying EIA

documentation: GB£50,000; newspaper advertising: GB£5,000

 

Contacts

• For more about the Espoo Convention, visit our website: www.unece.org/env/eia

• Or email: eia.conv@unece.org