Vers5
The Russian Federation and the Espoo Convention: Current Situation and Future Challenges
Kaja Peterson, SEI Tallinn Valdur Lahtvee, SEI Tallinn
________________________________________________________________ Tallinn 2007
Contract No312: “Assistance in the Implementation and Monitoring of the environmental components of the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) action plans to cover small capacity building and progress monitoring activities” (Task 3: Compliance with the Espoo Convention) Between Ecologic (Institute for International and European Environmental Policy (GmbH) and Estonian Institute for Sustainable Development/Stockholm Environment Institute Tallinn Centre (SEI Tallinn)
September 2007 Tallinn
Estonian Institute for Sustainable Development/Stockholm Environment Institute Tallinn Centre (SEI Tallinn) Box 160 Tallinn 10502 Estonia www.seit.ee
2
Contents
1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................4
2
INTRODUCTION: OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE OF THE STUDY .............5
3
ESPOO CONVENTION AND STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION .............5 ESPOO CONVENTION ...................................................................................................5 3.1 REQUIREMENTS OF ESPOO CONVENTION ........................................................6 3.2 AMENDMENTS TO THE ESPOO CONVENTION ...................................................6 3.3 STATUS OF PARTICIPATION IN THE CONVENTION ............................................7 3.4 STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CONVENTION .......................................8 3.5 BENEFITS AND CHALLENGES EXPERIENCED BY THE PARTIES OF THE CONVENTION ..............................................................................................................9
4 RELEVANCE OF ESPOO CONVENTION TO THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION...........................................................................................................10 5 BILATERAL AND MULTILATERAL AGREEMENTS AND INITIATIVES BETWEEN PARTIES TO THE ESPOO CONVENTION BORDERING WITH THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION........................................12 6 LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT IN THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION ..............................................15 7 STEPS THAT COULD BE FOLLOWED IN THE ACCESSION TO THE ESPOO CONVENTION BY THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION .............................18 7.1 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ACTION IF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION BEING A PARTY OF ORIGIN .....................................................................................................19 7.2 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ACTION IF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION BEING AN AFFECTED PARTY .....................................................................................................22 8
MAIN CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................24
9 EU DIALOGUE WITH THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION ON TRANSBOUNDARY ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS.......................................25 10
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..........................................................................26
11
BIBLIOGRAPHY ..........................................................................................27
3
1
Executive summary
The current study was conducted under service contract No 070201/2006/444344/SER/E3 signed between the European Commission DG Environment and Ecologic GmbH. The study focuses on the requirements and experiences of the parties to the UN ECE Convention on the Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context (Espoo Convention). The study looks at the opportunities and challenges that the EU member states have experienced according to the progress reports in the period of 2003-2005. The recommendations for the Russian Federation are drawn on the basis of the experiences of the EU member states. The Russian Federation is a signatory of the Espoo Convention, but not a party yet, which means that that country has to act in the good spirit of the Espoo Convention. There is a recent experience of the Russian Federation applying the articles of the Espoo Convention and working together with the EU member states. The environmental assessment of the Russian-German gas pipeline project also provides the local people directly affected by the project, but also interest groups such as environmental NGOs with a equally challenging testing site in all countries involved in this EIA process. The challenges of the implementation of the Espoo Convention by the Russian Federation are associated with a large number of neighbours with whom Russia would need to establish communication channels over a vast territory for the purposes of assessment of the transboundary environmental impact. The Russian Federation borders with 22 countries from the far north in Europe (the Barents Sea) up to the far east (the Bering Sea). In addition to the communication with neighbouring countries, formal communication and decision making channels need to be established domestically due to a large number of regional and local administrations across the country. Another challenge of implementation of the Espoo Convention for the Russian Federation is related to the establishment of effective and transparent channels of public participation in the transboundary EIA process. Conducting effective involvement of the public would need general mechanisms set at the federal level, but also mechanisms that take into account the regional and local specifics, including those of cultural origin. Further to the Espoo Convention, The Russian Federation is a party to the Framework Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Caspian Sea (further Tehran Convention). This document reflects efforts by the governments of Azerbaijan, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Kazakhstan, Russia and Turkmenistan to reach agreement on a regional effort to protect the fragile environment of the Caspian Sea. The Russian Federation signed the Convention in September 2004. This Convention entails three protocols, one of which is a Protocol on EIA in a Transboundary Context. The protocol remains unsigned by the parties of the Tehran Convention to date, but it would still provide a good opportunity to establish mechanisms and seek for experiences of transboundary EIA at a regional level that could be further transposed to other regions in the country or to federal level.
4
2
Introduction: objectives and scope of the study
The current study outlines the key issues of the UN ECE Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context (the Espoo Convention), the experience of implementation of the convention by the EU members states being the parties to the Convention. The study brings out the main positive aspects, but also major challenges that the parties have faced in the implementation process of the Espoo convention. The study also looks at the possibilities for the Russian Federation to become a party to the Espoo convention. The outline of the current experience of the parties to the Espoo Convention lies on the national reports on implementation in the period of 2003-2005 submitted to the Secretariat of the Convention in 2006-20071. The main focus has been put on the cases of transboundary environmental impact assessment described by the reporting parties. The cases have been selected mainly among those countries that border with the Russian Federation in order to describe the current frameworks of mutual cooperation between these countries that the Russia may consider to apply or join. The study focuses on the common issues experienced by the EU member states on the implementation of the Espoo Convention that might be beneficial or could be avoided in the implementation by the Russian Federation.
3
Espoo Convention and status of implementation
Espoo Convention The Espoo (EIA) Convention stipulates the obligations of Parties to assess the environmental impact of certain activities at an early stage of planning. It also lays down the general obligation of States to notify and consult each other on all major projects under consideration that are likely to have a significant adverse environmental impact across boundaries. The key actors of the Convention are ‘Party of Origin’, ‘Affected Party’, The Convention was adopted by the UNECE Governments in 1991 and entered into force on 10 September 1997. As of January 2007 there are 41 participants2 in the Convention (UNECE_3) that make up 79% of the member countries of UNECE. The Russian Federation as a successor of the Soviet Union who signed the Convention on 6 June 1991 is not yet a party to the Convention, but actively participates in the Convention work. In order to become party to the Convention the Russian Federation first has to prepare domestic legislation to fully transpose the Espoo Convention, and thereafter is eligible to apply for accession to the Convention.
1 2
http://www.unece.org/env/eia/review2006.htm http://www.unece.org/env/eia/convratif.html
5
3.1 Requirements of Espoo Convention Main procedural steps of the Espoo Convention have been described by the UN ECE (UNECE 2006). The following steps are mandatory to be taken in the implementation of the convention: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
Application of the Convention (Article 2.2., 2.5./Appendix I and III) Notification (Article 3.1.) Confirmation of participation (Article 3.3.) Transmittal of information (Article 3.6.) Public participation (Article 3.8.) Preparation of the EIA documentation (Article 4, Appendix II) Distribution of the EIA documentation for the purpose of participation of authorities and public of the affected country (Article 4.2.) 8. Consultation between parties (Article 5) 9. Final decision (Article 6.1.) 10. Transmittal of final decision documentation (Article 6.2.) An optional step: post-project analysis (Article 7, Appendix V)
3.2 Amendments to the Espoo Convention Two amendments to the Convention and proposal for adoption of the Annex to the Convention have been made over the lifetime of the Convention. The first amendment was adopted in 2001. Once in force3, will open the Convention to accession upon approval by UN Member States that are not members of the UNECE. The second amendment to the Convention was adopted in 2004. The amendment, once in force4, will allow, as appropriate, affected Parties to participate in scoping; undertake reviews of compliance; revise the Appendix I (list of activities); and make other minor changes. An annex to the Convention was adopted in 2003. The Kiev (Strategic Environmental Assessment) Protocol, once in force5, will require its Parties to evaluate the environmental consequences of their official draft plans and programmes. SEA is undertaken much earlier in the decision-making process than EIA -- it is therefore seen as a key tool for sustainable development. The Protocol provides for extensive public participation in government decision-making in numerous development sectors, from land-use planning to transport and from agriculture to industry, covering everything from oil refineries to ski-lifts. The public will not only have the right to know about plans and programmes, but also the right to comment, have their comments taken into account, and be told of the final decision and why it was taken.
3
It requires at least 30 parties to ratify the Amendment by their national parliament It requires at least 30 parties to ratify the Amendment by their national parliament 5 It requires at least 16 parties to ratify the Protocol by their national parliament 4
6
The participation of the public in strategic decision-making builds on two conventions: the Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context (the Espoo Convention) and the Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (the Aarhus Convention). Besides considering the typical environmental effects of plans and programmes, the Protocol places a special emphasis on the consideration of human health, going beyond existing legislation in the region.
3.3 Status of participation in the Convention As of January 2007, there are 30 signatories and 41 parties to the Convention (UNECE_3). All 27 EU member states are parties to the Convention (Table 1). Table 1. EU member states participating in the Espoo Convention (UNECE 2007) No
EU member state
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta The Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovak Republic Slovenia Spain Sweden UK European Union
28
6
Signatory (year) 1991 1991 1991 1993 1991 1991 1991 1991 1991 1991 1991 1991
1991 1991 1991 1991 1991 1993 1991 1991 1991
Party (year) 1994 1999 1995 2000 2001 1997 2001 1995 2001 2002 1998 1997 2002 1995 1998 2001 1995 20046 1995 1997 2000 2001 1999 1998 1992 1992 1997 1997
Malta is as a party to the Espoo Convention as a EU member state
7
3.4 Status of implementation of the Convention The Secretariat of the Espoo Convention received the reports from the signatories to the Convention in 2006-2007 (UNECE_2). 13 countries that have common border with the Russian Federation and are parties to the Espoo Convention have submitted their progress reports to the Secretariat of the Convention in 2006. The reports cover the period of 2003-2005. The overview of the legal framework established in the 7 EU member states bordering the Russian Federation is given in Table 2. Table 2. Experience of implementation of the Espoo Convention (2003-2005) by the parties of the Convention being EU member states and bordering with the Russian Federation (based on (UNECE 2006) Steps of implementation of Espoo Convention
Finland
Estonia
Latvia
Lithuania
Poland
Romania
Bulgaria
Notification procedure Procedure of preparation of the EIA documentation (Art. 4) Procedure of consultations (Art. 5) Procedure of taking final decision (Art. 6) Procedure of conducting postproject analysis (Art.7)
In place
In place
In place
In place
In place
In place
In place
In place
In place
In place
In place
In place
In place
In place
In place
In place
In place
In place
In place
In place
In place
In place
In place
In place
In place
In place
In place
In place
Case-by case
Case-bycase
Case-bycase
Case-bycase
Case-bycase
Case-bycase
Bilateral and multilateral agreements available (Art.8)
Bilateral agreement with Estonia
Formulated in EstonianFinnish bilateral agreement, otherwise caseby-case Bilateral agreements with Latvia and Finland
Bilateral agreement with Estonia
Bilateral agreement with Poland
Draft multilateral agreement among SE European Countries
Draft multilateral agreement among SE European Countries
Research programmes available (Art.9)
No special programmes available
No special programmes available
No special programmes available
No special programmes available
No special programmes available
Practical experience as party of origin Practical experience as
9 cases
Project-based studies on the state level implementation of EIA/SEA 2 cases
Bilateral agreements with Lithuania and Germany; draft agreements with the Czech Republic and Slovak Republic No special programmes available
0 cases
4 cases
2 cases
3 cases
2 cases
6 cases
1 case
4 cases
2 cases
8 cases
1 case
1 case
8
Steps of implementation of Espoo Convention
Finland
Estonia
Latvia
Lithuania
Poland
Romania
Bulgaria
affected party
The current implementation of the Espoo Convention by the EU member states shows that the legal framework for launching the process (identification of a proposed activity requiring EIA under Espoo Convention, notification), preparing and exchanging documents, proceeding public consultations and taking the final decision is well in place and applied for many years by now. For example, Spain and Sweden have been applying the Convention since 1992, since the countries became the first parties to the Convention. At the same time, post-project analyses are not conducted as systematically and in a legally framed a way as the process managed up to the point of final decision. The countries report on a case-by-case approach rather than as a natural step in the assessment process. The need for paying more attention to the postproject analysis has not only been stressed in the context of the Espoo Convention, but also in project-level Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and planning level Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA). The effects of the running project on the environment compared to the effects analysed during the EIA or SEA process are usually overlooked.
3.5 Benefits and challenges experienced by the parties of the Convention According to the review of implementation of the Espoo Convention by the parties in 2003-2005, the country reports revealed both benefits and challenges of the implementation of the Espoo Convention. The Convention contains the main principles and procedures for achieving the aims assessing the environmental impacts across state boundaries. But applying it in practice is often not straightforward for several reasons. Relevant national regulations are not very detailed and often do not provide practical help for implementation. Also legal and administrative systems differ substantially. Countries have quite different cultural traditions on how far their own citizens have a right to information and the extent of involvement in decision making. Bilateral and multilateral arrangements have been highly regarded by the parties to the Espoo Convention providing practical steps to build mutual understanding of how to communicate and work jointly between direct neighbours. The reason for embarking on a bilateral agreement is usually that two countries realise the crucial need of knowing how each other tackles the EIA process and want to build practical arrangements for mutual communication. Establishment of a joint working group or a Commission is frequently referred to in the country reports. Establishing an EIA working group with a neighbouring country would be an option to consider for the Russian Federation. This would enable the concerned countries to exchange information on the countries’ understanding of the convention and on their national EIA laws and administration.
9
4
Relevance of Espoo Convention to the Russian Federation
The Russian Federation (RF) borders with 22 countries. Seven of them (Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania and Bulgaria) are members of European Union. The European Union is a collective member of the Espoo Convention since 24 June 1997. The potential environmental impacts may originate from mainland and transboundary waterbodies and may become transferred via air and waterways. The largest transboundary waterbodies that may become of environmental concern for Russia and its neighbouring countries are the Barents Sea, the Baltic Sea, the Lake Peipus, the Dnepr River, the Black Sea, the Caspian Sea, the Amur River, the Sea of Japan, the Sea of Okhotsk, the Bering Sea, the Chukchi Sea and many smaller waterbodies (Table 3). Five parties to the Espoo Convention (Norway, Finland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania) had reported (UNECE_2) about their communication (notification) and cooperation with the Russian Federation in EIA in transboundary context (Table 3). These were the cases where the parties to the Convention being parties of origin had involved Russian authorities in the transboundary procedure of EIA. Table 3. Countries bordering with the Russian Federation, their status as parties to the Espoo Convention and cases of transboundary EIA with the Russian Federation (based on (UNECE_2)) Possible transboundary environmental issue with the Russian Federation Mainland, The Barents Sea, The Svalbard Mainland, The Baltic Sea
Cases of common transboundary EIA with the Russian Federation (due January 2007) Affected party Party of origin
Yes
Mainland, the Lake Peipus, The Baltic Sea
No cases reported
Latvia
Yes
Mainland
5
Lithuania
Yes
Mainland, The Baltic Sea
No cases reported Baltic Port development project (2003)
6
Belarus
Yes*
7
Poland
Yes
8
Ukraine
Yes
Mainland, The River Dnepr Mainland (Kaliningrad), The Baltic Sea Mainland, The River
No
Country bordering with the Russian Federation
Party to Espoo Conv
1
Norway
Yes
2
Finland
Yes
3
Estonia
4
Inter border road between Norway and Finland in north of Norway (??) Ust-Luga multi-purpose terminal (2003)
Imatra power plant (1996); Final disposal of used nuclear fuel (1998); New nuclear power unit in Loviisa (1998) Renovation of the 8th energy block of Estonian Power Plant and the 11th energy block of the Baltic Power Plant (2002) No cases reported No cases reported
No cases reported No cases reported
No cases reported
No cases
No cases reported
No cases reported
10
No
Country bordering with the Russian Federation
Party to Espoo Conv
9
Romania
Yes
Possible transboundary environmental issue with the Russian Federation Dnepr, The Black Sea, The Sea of Azov The Black Sea
10
Bulgaria
Yes
The Black Sea
11 12
Turkey Georgia
No Yes
The Black Sea Mainland
13
Azerbaijan
Yes
14 15 16
Iran7 Turkmenistan Kazakhstan
No No Yes
17
China1
No
18 19
Mongolia1 North Korea1
No No
20 21
South Korea1 Japan1
No No
22
USA
No8
Mainland, The Caspian Sea The Caspian Sea The Caspian Sea Mainland, The Caspian Sea Mainland, The River of Amur, The Lake Khanka Mainland Mainland, The Sea of Japan The Sea of Japan The Sea of Japan, The Sea of Okhotsk Alaska, The Chukchi Sea, The Bering Sea
Cases of common transboundary EIA with the Russian Federation (due January 2007) Affected party Party of origin reported No cases reported No cases reported NA No cases reported No cases reported NA NA No cases reported NA
No cases reported
NA
NA NA
NA NA
NA NA
NA NA
NA
NA
No cases reported NA No cases reported No cases reported NA NA No cases reported
The Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea (1992)9, entered into force on 17 January 2000. The Helsinki Convention (HELCOM) has 9 contracting parties, including the Russian Federation. The Convention has a broad scope of activities and communication between the parties. Common recommendations, including those on joint research and assessment programmes have been developed and adopted by the participating countries. The Helsinki Convention has established an ad hoc working group on EIA in a Transboundary Context. There is another international treaty that has a strong focus on transboundary EIA and to which the Russian Federation is a signatory to. This is the Framework Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Caspian Sea (2003)10, also called Tehran Convention. Following the ratification of the Tehran Convention by all five Governments of the Caspian littoral states, the Convention entered into force on the 12th August 2006. The signatories of the Convention are the Republic of Azerbaijan, Islamic Republic of Iran, The Republic of Kazakhstan, The Russian Federation and Turkmenistan. Four protocols are attached to the Convention, among which is the Protocol on Environmental Impact Assessment in Transboundary Context, yet to be 7
Not a UNECE member country USA has signed the Espoo Convention on 26.02.1991 9 http://www.helcom.fi/Convention/en_GB/convention/ 10 http://www.caspianenvironment.org/newsite/Convention-FrameworkConventionText.htm 8
11
adopted. The intention of the signatories of the Convention to continue the regional negotiations on the four priority area Protocols to the Tehran Convention, i.e. Protocol on Biodiversity Conservation, Protocol concerning Regional Preparedness, Response and Cooperation in Combating Oil Pollution Incidents, Protocol for the Protection of the Caspian Sea Against Land-Based Sources of Pollution and Protocol on Environmental Impact Assessment in Transboundary Context, allowing for the Protocols to be adopted and signed at the second Meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP), was reaffirmed in the first COP meeting on 25 May 2007 in Baku, Azerbaijan. Also Transboundary EIA Guidelines around the Caspian Sea have been developed under the auspices of UNEP and the Caspian Environment Programme, developed in collaboration with EBRD and UN ECE (UNECE 2003). Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making an Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (called Aarhus Convention) entered into force on 30 October 2001. The convention links environmental rights and human rights. It acknowledges that we owe an obligation to future generations and that sustainable development can be achieved only through the involvement of all stakeholders. The Aarhus Convention grants the public rights and imposes on Parties and public authorities obligations regarding access to information and public participation and access to justice. In August 2007, there are 40 countries that are signatories to the convention and 41 Contracting Parties11. The European Union is a collective Contracting Party to the Convention. The Russian Federation is not a signatory to the Aarhus Convention. However, a Russian delegation participated in the 2nd meeting of the parties in Almaty, Kazakhstan in 2005. 15 out of the 22 countries that are UN ECE member countries and have a common border with the Russian Federation (see Table 3), 14 countries12 are parties to the Aarhus Convention.
5
Bilateral and multilateral agreements and initiatives between parties to the Espoo Convention bordering with the Russian Federation
The formal procedures established between the EU countries neighbouring the Russian Federation in a transboundary EIA are quite variable (Table 4). Bilateral agreements under the Espoo Convention are in force between Estonia and Finland, Estonia and Latvia, and Lithuania and Poland. However, several of the EU countries are in the process of adopting a bilateral agreement that sets the procedures of joint assessment of environmental impacts in transboundary context. Poland is in the process of signing bilateral agreements comprising articles on joint action under Espoo Convention with Germany, the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic. Joint Commissions under the Espoo Convention have been established in two cases - one in the framework of the bilateral agreement between Estonia and Finland, and the other between Estonia and Latvia.
11 12
http://www.unece.org/env/pp/ctreaty_files/ctreaty_2007_03_27.htm Turkey is not a signatory to the Aarhus Convention
12
Table 4. Bilateral agreements between parties of the Espoo Convention bordering the Russian Federation and examples of cases of transboundary EIA No
Parties involved
Agreement signed
1
Estonia and Finland
21 February 2002
2
Estonia and Latvia Latvia and Lithuania
14 March 1997 No agreement
Yes
Lithuania and Poland Poland and Germany
May 2004
No
Signed, but in force yet
No
Poland and Czech Republic Poland and Slovak Republic Romania and Bulgaria
Draft agreement
No
Draft Agreement
No
No cases reported
No agreement
No
Cernovada Nucler Power Plant, Unit 2 (Romania); Rosia Montana project (Romania); Belene Nuclear Power Plant (Bulgaria); Calafat-Vidin Bridge over the Danube River (Bulgaria, Romania)
3
4 5
5
6
7
Joint Commission established Yes
No
Examples of cases of transboundary EIA between parties to the signed agreement (country of origin in brackets) Final disposal of used nuclear fuel (Finland, 1998); New nuclear power unit in Loviisa (Finland, 1998), Re-construction of two oil-shale power plants in NW Estonia (Estonia, 2001); Construction of fourth energy unit of Olkiluoto nuclear power plant (Finland, 2007); Construction of the third energy unit of Loviisa power plant (Finland, 2007); Construction of oil-shale fuel production unit in Narva (Estonia, 2007) Sanitation of the River Pedeli (Estonia, 2005) Ignalina Nuclear Power Plant Unit I Decommissioning project for Defuelling Phase (Lithuania); The near surface repository of the radioactive Waste (Lithuania); Reconstruction of Šventoji State Seaport (Lithuania); Interim Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel from Ignalina Nuclear Power Plant Inits I and II (Lithuania) No cases reported Water transmission from Berzdorf lake for indundation of mining damages (Germany); Waterway from Schwedt to Szczecin (Germany); Offshore wind farms in the Baltic Sea (Germany); Constructions for flood prevention in Ostritz (Germany); Bridge construction in Frankfurt/Oder (Germany); Construction of machine in paper mill in Schwedt (Germany); Extension of turkey farm in Cochen (Germany); Construction of a fuel boiler in paper mill in Schwedt (Germany) Construction of sewage system network for Gmina Krzyzanowice (Poland)
As shown in the Table 4 (above), the communication and joint assessment of environmental impacts in transboundary context take usually place between the countries concerned without a formal agreement, but rather on case-by-case basis. According to the country reports on the implementation of the Espoo Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary context for the period of 20032005, there are no multilateral agreements in force. However, a multilateral agreement among the countries of South-East Europe for the implementation of the Espoo Convention is currently being drafted and discussed. The eight countries involved in
13
this agreement are Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Greece, Romania, Serbia and Montenegro, and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. It is stated in the principles of the draft agreement (UNECE 2005) that the need for establishment of bilateral or multilateral joint expert groups is looked at on a case-bycase basis. The draft agreement will be presented to the 11th meeting of the EIA Working Group for discussion, to be held in November 2007 in Geneva. UN ECE launched initially three sub-regional programmes to strengthen the cooperation between the parties to the Espoo Convention. These programmes are South-East Europe, Mediterranean and the Baltic Sea. A special programme was launched for the Central Asian region in 200413. The South-East Europe sub-region covers countries in the Balkan and Black Sea area. The programme has held altogether three meetings (December 2004, July 2005, November 2005). The Mediterranean programme is still pending, and there is no indication yet of dates of meetings. In the Baltic Sea sub-regional programme, the draft EIA Guidelines (HELCOM 2005) is being discussed among the 10 contracting parties (ie 9 Baltic Sea coastal states and the EU). The activities under the UN ECE sub-regional programme have included 2 meetings (2005 and 2006), where a delegation from the Russian Federation also participated14. Such meetings provide a useful platform for discussions and sharing of experience at a regional level among neighbouring countries. In addition to the UN ECE initiative HELCOM has drafted Guidance on conducting EIA. All contracting parties to the Helsinki Convention except the Russian Federation expressed their readiness to adopt the guidelines as they stood in 200512. Another region UN ECE is devoting attention to is the Central Asia. Countries of Central Asia, specifically for the Republic of Kazakhstan, The Kyrgyz Republic, Turkemenistan, Republic of Tajikistan and Republic of Uzbekistan are being supported by UN ECE and other organisations to develop capacities for implementation of the Espoo Convention in this region. Guidelines on transboundary EIA have been developed specifically for Central Asian region(2004). The Caspian Sea or Tehran Convention (2003) also promotes transboundary cooperation, including implementation of transboundary EIA. The Russian Federation, together with Azerbaijan, The Islamic Republic of Iran, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan are the parties to the Convention. Among the four protocols attached to the Convention, there is a Protocol on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context. As referred earlier in this study, this Protocol is still yet to be adopted. The Russian Federation hosted all the three meetings that have been held on the terms of the Protocol (March 2005, October 2005, June 2006). Much preparatory work for the adoption of the protocol has already been done during the drafting process (20022003) of the Guidelines on transboundary EIA in the Caspian Sea Region (UNECE 2005).
13 14
http://www.unece.org/env/eia/central_asia.htm http://www.unece.org/env/eia/documents/BalticSeaWorkshop2005/Espooseminarreport.pdf
14
6
Legislative framework of environmental impact assessment in the Russian Federation
The aim and the purpose of the Environmental Impact Assessment is regulated by the law “On the Protection of the Environment” of the Russian Federation. EIA is defined as a “type of activity on identification, analysis and consideration of direct, indirect and other consequences of environmental impact of a proposed economic and other activity for decision making, whether the activity can proceed or not”. The law also sets the role of EIA in decision making by saying that there is “an obligation to carry out pursuant to the legislation of the Russian Federation the examination of drafts and other documentation that form basis for economic and other activity that is likely to cause adverse environmental impact, puts life, health and property of citizens under threat” and that “technical regulations in the field of the environment protection shall be followed” (Article 3). Article 32 of this law defines that EIA is “implemented with regard to the proposed economic and other activity which is likely to cause direct or indirect effect on the environment regardless of the ownership status of subjects of the economic and other activity”. Article 33 sets the requirement “to provide appropriate documents and (or) documentation, that justify the proposed economic and other activity, and environmental protection regulations and the ecological expertise shall be performed”. The federal law “On Revisions to the Urban-planning Code of the Russian Federation and special legislative acts of the Russian Federation” from 18 December 2006 (No232-FZ) revised the EIA legislation to a large extent. Pursuant to the new edition of Article 1 of the federal law of November 23 1995 No174-FZ “On Ecological Expertise”, ecological expertise is “an identification of relevance of documents and (or) documentation that set basis for the proposed economic and other activity to the object of ecological expertise and to environmental requirements established by technical regulations and legislation in the field of environmental protection, in order to prevent adverse impact of this activity on the environment”. Article 14 of the same law defines that the state ecological expertise shall take place on the basis of the documentation “that contains materials of assessment of impact on the natural environment by economic and other activity subject to the state ecological expertise”. At the same time Article 3 states that “ecological expertise is based on the principles of integrated assessment of impact of economic and other activity on the environment". As it was noted in accordance with adoption of the revisions to the Urban-planning Code and other legislative acts of the Russian Federation procedures of EIA were simplified, including shortening of the list of objects being subject to mandatory screening of state ecological expertise procedure as compared to the previous list. In particular, the draft documents of territorial planning (documents subject to Strategic Environmental Assessment), and project documentation of objects of fundamental reconstruction, that were previously subject to the state ecological expertise of the project documentation pursuant to the provisions of the Urban-planning Code of the Russian Federation (Article 49) are now excluded. In addition to this, several provisions of Article 11 of the law “On ecological expertise” expired. For example, draft international treaties and technical and economic assessment of projects of economic activity, which are likely to cause impact on the natural environment of 15
adjacent countries, or for implementation of which the use of natural objects that are common with the neighbouring countries is necessary, or which affect the interests of the neighbouring countries, as defined in the Espoo Convention, were formerly subject to obligatory state ecological expertise at the federal level, but as a result of the amended law, have been excluded. At the same time the principle significance with regard to the EIA process the Russian Federation has to perform the state ecological expertise for drafts of “federal programmes, that envisage construction and exploitation of economic activity objects, that affect the environment, in particular the location of such objects, the status of protected natural objects, should be considered”, also drafts of “agreements on demarcation of production sites”, materials of “integrated ecological inspection of parts of territories, that have legal status of specially protected natural territories of federal significance”, and for objects of the state ecological expertise, indicated in the following federal laws: “On Continental Shelf of the Russian Federation” from 30 November 1995 No187-FZ, “On the exclusive economic zone of the Russian Federation" from 17 December 1998 No191-FZ and “On Interior Marine Waters, Territorial Sea and Adjacent Zone of the Russian Federation” from 31 July 1998 No155-FZ. Exclusion of a number of objects from the former list of mandatory objects of state ecological expertise has resulted in a situation where projects with significant environmental effects by-pass the environmental assessment process. This means that wider public may face severe environmental, social and economic problems because they did not have an opportunity to scrutinise the project documentation. Other documents that are subject to environmental review are listed in the Article 47 of the Urban-planning Code. Such documents are “engineering surveys for development of the project documentation, construction, reconstruction of objects of fundamental reconstruction shall be implemented to obtain 1) materials on natural conditions of the territory ... and factors of environmental impact, on prognosis of their changes, necessary for making decision regarding such territory; 2) materials, necessary for environmental protection”. The results of engineering surveys are presented as “a document on implemented engineering surveys, containing materials in the text form and in a form of charts (schemes) and reflecting the information ... on results of integrated study of natural and artificial conditions of indicated territory, including on results of study, assessment and forecast of possible changes of natural and artificial conditions of indicated territory with regard to the object of fundamental reconstruction”. The Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation from 19 January 2006 No20 "On Engineering Surveys for the Preparation of Project Documentation for Construction and Reconstruction” lists general and specific types of engineering surveys, including engineering-ecological surveys, necessary for the development of project documentation for construction and reconstruction. The Resolution establishes the rules for implementation of engineering surveys for study of natural conditions and technical factors. The executive bodies of the subjects of the Russian Federation are authorized to develop and approve upon agreement with the Ministry of Regional Development of the Russian Federation their orders for implementation of engineering surveys in the territory of these subjects. At the same time, pursuant to
16
Article 47 of the Urban-planning Code the preparation and implementation of the project documentation without implementation of the relevant engineering surveys is not allowed. According to the generally accepted EIA procedure, the project developer has the obligation to assess the environmental impacts of the project, compare the alternative solutions, conduct the public involvement and mitigate the adverse effects. Implementation of this procedure is regulated by different sub-laws in the Russian Federation such as “Provision on the Environmental Impact Assessment”, approved by the Order of the State Committee for Ecology of the Russian Federation on 16 May 2000 (No372) and registered in the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation on 4 July 2000. Federal laws, such as the law “On the Continental Shelf of the Russian Federation" and “On the Interior Marine Waters, Territorial ea and Adjacent Zone of the Russian Federation” stipulate the necessity of implementation of ecological expertise of projects at sea. Such projects include licensing and implementation of drilling operations and laying of pipelines. At the same time the license shall include data on ecological provisions for the use of the area, including the arrangement for ecological monitoring, compensation of damage caused to living resources, and on prevention and mitigating the emergencies, conservation and abandonment of facilities after completion of works. There is another piece of legislation that regulates the ecological expertise. In the Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation from 30 December 2006 (No881), that entered into force on 1 January 2007 “Order on approval of norms of permissible impact on the water objects” it is defined that norms for permissible impact on the water objects (permissible aggregate impact of all sources located within the river basin or its part, on the water object or its part) on the basis of maximum permissible concentrations of chemicals, radioactive substances, microorganisms and other indicators of water quality in water objects, are established only when the state ecological expertise has been concluded positively. Another Governmental Resolution “Order of laying underwater cables and pipelines in the interior marine waters and territorial sea of the Russian Federation” adopted 26 January 2000 (No68) (amended on 9 November 2004) defines the decision on issuing of the permit for laying of underwater cables and pipelines, or on rejecting such a permit is made if the conclusion of the state ecological expertise on the draft project documentation is positive. ”Rules of implementation of marine scientific studies” from 2004 also envisage granting such a permit only if the conclusion of the state ecological expertise is positive (Article 64). The Federal law "On Ecological Expertise" envisages implementation of the public ecological expertise of all objects of the state ecological expertise, except such objects, information of which constitute state, commercial and (or) other secrets protected by law (Article 21). According to the Report of the International Project “Caspian Environment Programme” (Butylina 2007), public ecological expertise is practiced in very few cases. This is due to complex procedures (registration of public ecological expertise, obtaining of the state license) and financial aspects (public
17
organizations should implement the indicated work at their own expense). Moreover, results of the public expertise are only recommendations. The federal law “On the Protection of the Environment” provides that the authorities of the subjects of the Russian Federation in the sphere of environmental protection “adopt laws and other normative legal acts ….in the field of environmental protection pursuant to the federal legislation, as well as control for their implementation” and establish environmental quality norms that contain relevant requirements or set higher standards, but not lower standards than established at the federal level. It should be noted that the Russian Federation being the Party to the UNECE Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes has to develop, approve, and implement the relevant legal, administrative, economic, financial and technical measures to prevent, limit and reduce transboundary impact and, as far as possible, achieve their compatibility. In particular, application of “environmental impact assessment and other assessment methods” is among such measures. Article 2.6 of the Convention notes that cooperation on the environmental protection of transboundary waters includes environmental protection under the impact of these waters, including the marine environment. As a conclusion, it could be said that the current EIA legislative framework in the Russian Federation is not sufficient to apply the transboundary environmental assessment requirements.
7
Steps that could be followed in the accession to the Espoo Convention by the Russian Federation
The Soviet Union collapsed in August 1991 and officially ceased to exist on 11 December 1991 (Belovezky Treaty). With this act the Russian Federation declared to become the successor of the Soviet Union. On 25 February 1991 the Soviet Union had signed UNECE Convention on EIA in a Transboundary Context (UNECE 1991) and in December 1991, the Russian Federation became the signatory of the Espoo Convention. The accession process to become a party to the Convention requires the following steps to be taken by the Russian Government and Parliament: Firstly, a political decision on the launch of the accession process to the Espoo Convention. If the political decision is positive, other steps will follow. Secondly, establishment of the legal framework for the transposition of the articles of the Espoo Convention into the national legislation. Transposition means both the establishment of administrative structures and capacities, as well as procedural mechanisms for implementation of the Espoo Convention. The role of the central government and the states (regions) needs to be agreed and put in place. The third component for effective implementation of the Convention is the state support to the public participation process by launching capacity building programmes for environmental and other civil society NGOs. The most crucial step is undoubtedly the first one – the political decision. If Russia chooses not to become a party to the Espoo Convention, this would challenge the 18
effectiveness of environmental protection of the transboundary areas of both Russia and the neighbouring countries. If Russia acknowledges the need for transboundary EIA and being the Party of origin (according to the definition of the Espoo Convention) notifies the Affected Party, the communication channels between the two (or more) countries, procedures and common rules for assessment need to be established each time separately. This would take time and effort from both sides of the national frontiers. If Russia is regarded as an Affected Party according to the Espoo Convention, but not being one officially, the notification of a proposed activity would always lie in the hands of the Party of Origin, on his good will, not on jointly adopted rules of action, if the countries concerned were parties to the Espoo Convention. However, the possibility for notification of the neighbouring country case-by-case basis on projects close to one’s border is always an option. The possible difficulties in the establishment of a legal framework for transboundary environmental impact assessment would rather be associated with the administrative management of the assessment than with setting up legal procedures for EIA. The level of authority to make a decision on the transboundary nature of the environmental impact needs to be regulated and the authority acting as a focal point of communication needs to be appointed. Establishment of effective public participation process takes a long time, since it is related to the various processes taking place in a society, such as development of civil society, public access to information, transparency of decision making, public access to justice and environmental decision making that all go beyond the scope of Espoo Convention.
7.1 Recommendations for action if the Russian Federation being a Party of Origin In practice, the following steps are taken in the implementation of the Espoo Convention (see also the figure15): 1) Screening The Competent Authority that approves of a spatial plan or issues a construction permit identifies the correspondence of the proposed activity to the articles of the Espoo Convention, and makes a decision about the launching of the procedure of Notification under the Convention. The potential transboundary impact of the project can be best identified if the project developer provides the competent authority with the following information at the earliest possible meeting: a) a brief description of the project; b) its potential impacts in normal operating conditions; c) its potential impact in a works case scenario; d) the type of transboundary impacts possible; e) potential stakeholders, affected public; f) draft public consultations and disclosure plan.
15
Figure and the recommendations provided in this chapter and chapter 7.2. largely base on the Guidelines of EIA in a Transboundary Context in the Caspian Sea Region
19
In many cases, the project developer would benefit by hiring a local consultation advisor in each affected country to assist in identifying the culturally appropriate and effective means of public consultation process. 2) Notification Notification represents a formal letter issued by the Competent Authority. The letter contains the following information: a) Information about the proposed activity, including any available information about the possible transboundary impact. The Party of Origin may request for additional information from the Affected Party; b) The nature of the possible decision. This could mean a principle decision about the proposed activity, approval of a spatial plan, issuance of a development permit or an environmental permit etc.; c) An indication of a reasonable time within which a response is expected, taking into account the nature of the proposed activity; d) Name and address of the competent authority whom the response is aught to be sent; The language of the communication between the countries of the European Union and the Russian Federation could be English, since English is most widely used within EU. However, all national languages could be used as well. The Russian language could be considered in the communication with countries of Central Asia, since the Russian language, for example, is the recommended communication language in the Guidelines on the implementation of the Espoo Convention in the Central Asian Countries (2004). The Notification letter is usually sent to the official Point of Communication of the Affected Party, if not otherwise agreed in a bilateral agreement between the countries concerned. The list of official Points of Communication under the Espoo Convention is available on UN ECE web page: http://www.unece.org/env/eia/points_of_contact.htm The Notification letter is sent as a hard copy (original paper copy) by an ordinary mail or a copy of the hard copy (pdf-file) by electronic mail to the official Point of Communication of the Affected Party. The format for notification displayed on the webpage of the Espoo Convention http://www.unece.org/env/eia/notification.htm could be used. 3) Timing of the Notification The Notification letter aught to be sent out no later than the information about the proposed activity is released nationally. 4) Response from the Affected Party The Affected Party responds to the Notification letter received from the Party of Origin. In the response, the Affected Party sends an official letter to the Party of Origin: a)informing about the interest to participate in the environmental impact assessment procedure; b) with a request to receive further information on the proposed activity to make decision on the participation in the environmental impact assessment procedure;
20
c) comments on the EIA documentation. See further details in the next chapter 5.3., p3 (Transmission of response). 5) Notification of the Decision Corresponding to the Espoo Convention requirements of Article 6, the country of origin must inform the affected country or countries of the final decision on the EIA. The country of origin should summarise the comments received during the transboundary EIA process and explain how and to what extent the comments were taken into account in the final EIA and decision. The information on the final decision should include a description of any available mechanisms for appeal to administrative or judicial authority for the affected country or its public. Figure. Process of Environmental Impact Assessment in Transboundary Context16
Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context Country of Origin STEP 1
Screening (identification of potential transboundary impacts of the proposed project)
STEP 2
Notification (preparing notification package of documents, transmission of notification letter to the potentially affected countries, communication with affected countries and confirm receipt of the notification package)
STEP 3
Receipt of response (if negative or no response received: no further action; if positive, process continues; joint agreement on how to build the further assessment process, including terms of how documentation should be transmitted, and how public participation should be conducted; agreement on sharing costs of the review of EIA documentation)
16
Affected Country
Receipt of notification package, preparation of response, including collecting any relevant additional information, nomination of contact point; response time 30 days
As adapted from the Guidelines on EIA in a Transboundary Context in the Caspian Sea region, 2003
21
Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context Country of Origin
Affected Country
STEP 4
Drafting and disclosure of EIA documentation (draft EIA documentation transmitted for comments to affected countries at the same time with national disclosure)
Receipt of draft EIA documentation, disclosure to affected public (collection of comments resulting from public consultations)
STEP 5
Decision (final decision taking the comments from public consultations into account)
Transmittal of results of the public consultations to the country of origin; response time 60 days
STEP 6
Notification of Decision
Receipt of notification of decision
7.2 Recommendations for action if the Russian Federation being an Affected Party 1) Receiving notification of a project with potential transboundary impacts Notification will have been sent to the official point of contact/competent authority of affected country(ies). In the event that the official point of contact is not the competent environmental authority, a second dispatch of the notification package should be sent to the competent environmental authority. The affected country party will be informed how much time is available normally 30 days to decide if they wish to participate in the EIA process. Prior to responding the affected country should consider informing and discussing the project with local authorities whose geographic area may be affected by the proposed project. The affected country may also wish to solicit public opinion on whether or not to participate. A good practice, it would be helpful to nominate a person within the competent authority of affected country who would be responsible for arranging the review and preparing the response and ongoing communication. The party of origin may initiate communication with the competent authority in the affected country to confirm whether or not the competent authority received the notification package and whether they need additional information. 2) Preparing the Response Corresponding to Espoo Convention requirements Article 3.3. the response to the party of origin may be affirmative or negative.
22
If the response is affirmative, the affected country would choose to participate in the EIA process, the response should be sent by registered mail and contain the following information: a) Clear statement of the intention to participate in the EIA process; b) A summary of readily available information on relevant topics in the affected country (eg sensitive ecosystems that might be affected by the proposed project); c) Information on public consultations process in affected country, including contacts of consultation resources, projected costs of meetings, language of documents, amount of technical/non-technical information needed etc.; d) Comments on proposed timing of the EIA review; e) Information on compensation for review, if applicable; f) And request for the draft EIA, specifying type of information of most interest. If the response is negative, ie the affected country may choose not to participate in the EIA process, it should be communicated preferably by a registered mail. In the negative response, the affected country, may, however, ask for a copy of the draft and final EIA documents or other materials for information. 3) Transmission of Response Corresponding to the Espoo Convention requirements Article 3.3. the point of contact/competent authority of the affected party should provide a response to the point of contact/competent environmental authority of the party of origin within 30 days. The response should inform that they received the letter of notification and indicate whether they wish to participate in the EIA process. The response letter should be sent by registered mail and preferably a “return receipt” requested. This will provide the affected countries‘ competent authorities with evidence of the requests made and documents and consultations requested. Electronic copies (including those to the environmental competent authority) are regarded as an official response in EU countries, but this may not be the case in Russia. Informal communication between the party of origin and affected party is also helpful to proceed with the planning process. 4) Review of draft EIA documentation and Public Consultation The draft EIA documentation could be either the EIA scoping document, a programme or a Term of Reference for the EIA, or EIA report, that is also called Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The draft EIA documents should be reviewed within 60 days or the request for additional time should be made to the country of origin. In many cases, as referred by the countries in their progress reports to UN ECE, there will be not much flexibility in extending the review period because of the internal consultation requirements in line with national legislation in the country of origin. Affected country may also make a request in the response letter for additional information during later stages of EIA process, such as during project construction, implementation or monitoring in relation to transboundary impacts. The affected country’s competent authority should have outlined the appropriate consultation process at the notification stage of the process, including costs (typically borne by the project developer). The draft EIA documents will be circulated by the project developer or affected country’s competent authority, depending on the agreements during notification and discussion. Similarly, meetings may be organised
23
by the developer, the affected country’s competent authority, or the competent authority of the country of origin. These processes should be taken within 60 days, if there is no request for additional time from the affected country. 5) Role of competent authorities in transmittal of comments to the country of origin and project developer Corresponding to the Espoo Convention requirements of Article 4.2. the competent authorities in the affected country should propose the most efficient way of transmitting comments to the competent authority of the country of origin and the project developer. The competent authority of the affected country would collect comments and transmit them to the parties concerned – either the project developer directly or to the competent authority only or both, means specified by the country of origin. The means of collecting comments and transmitting them would be determined at the early stage of the communication in order to facilitate smooth communication and effective EIA process. 6) Receipt of final approval of the project and communication to the public When the EIA process has been completed, the competent authorities of the affected countries are consulted by the country of origin whether they would like to have further consultations before the final decision will be taken. Following the final decision, the country of origin should inform the affected country who participated in the EIA process about the final approval of the project and how and to what extent the comments made by the affected country(ies) were taken into account. The competent authorities of the affected country(ies) would ensure that the comments and how they were taken into account and reflected in the final EIA document is made available to the public who participated in the EIA process. The affected country(ies) may wish to obtain information on project implementation and monitoring, and the country of origin should in turn encourage the project developer to consider how information can be best provided to all stakeholders, including those in an affected country.
8
Main conclusions
Further to the results of the current analysis, the following may be concluded: 1. As of August 2007, the Russian Federation has not taken legal responsibilities regarding the Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context. The Russian Federation, as the successor of the Soviet Union is the signatory to the Espoo Convention from 1991, but has not ratified the Convention. However, by signing the Espoo Convention in 1991 the country has taken voluntary responsibility not to go against the spirit of the Convention, although legal commitments have not been taken. 2. The Russian Federation has not signed the Protocol on Strategic Environmental Assessment in Transboundary Context, also called the Kiev Protocol (adopted in 2003, but not yet enforced), but is an observer in the process. 3. The Russian Federation is a contracting party to the Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea (1992) and the Framework Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Caspian Sea (2003, also Tehran Convention). Both conventions acknowledge
24
4.
5.
6.
7.
9
the importance of joint assessment of transboundary environmental impacts. The Tehran Convention includes among four protocols a Protocol on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context. This protocol, and the three other supplementary protocols, have yet to be adopted by all five contracting parties including the Russian Federation. According to the resolution of the 1st Conference of Parties of the Tehran Convention held in May 2007, in Azerbaijan, the intention is to do so in the 2nd Conference of Parties in 2008, held in Iran. The Russian Federation has not yet signed any bilateral agreements nor become party to any of the multilateral agreements that comprise a component of transboundary environment impact assessment. Despite of the absence of legal obligations taken in the Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transbounday Context, the Russian Federation is an active participant in the thematic and sub-regional group work under the Espoo Convention. The Nord Stream project is the first project where the Russian Federation operates as a Party of Origin in the context of the Espoo Convention, without being legally a Party to the Espoo Convention. The experience gained from this process would enrich the current experience of the implementing the Espoo Convention in all countries involved and would encourage the Russian Federation to take further steps in developing capacities for transboundary EIA. It may be concluded, that the Russian Federation has a long-term practical experience in the assessment the environmental impacts across state boundaries, that fully facilitates the country to take further steps to establish administrative and legal frameworks to become a Party to the Espoo Convention.
EU dialogue with the Russian Federation on transboundary environmental matters
The starting point of the European Union and the Russian Federation environmental dialogue is the Common Economic Space road-map adopted in 2005. This includes under environment the objective: "… to promote respect of the environment and commitment to international environmental agreements, such as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, and regional conventions..." and the action: "Support compliance with the UNECE convention on trans boundary environmental impact assessment". The EU-Russia Environmental Dialogue is concerned with the implementation of the road-map. European Commission signed Terms of Reference for Establishing a Dialogue on Environment between the Ministry of Natural Resources of the Russian Federation and the Directorate General for Environment of the European Commission on 10 October 2006 in Helsinki, Finland (European_Commission 2006). In this document both signatories agreed to promote and enhance bilateral cooperation in environmental matters, and specifically in transboundary issues. In the context of Espoo Convention, the Russian Federation and the EU agreed to promote approaches
25
to environmental policy and management, including convergence of legislation and standards, strengthening of cooperation on transboundary environmental matters and the resolution of problems, to facilitate cooperation within multilateral environmental forums and the implementation of international environmental agreements. Both parties also agreed to raise public awareness of environmental issues. These commitments also pave the road to the further implementation of requirements of the Espoo Convention in the Russian Federation.
10 Acknowledgements The authors gratitude goes to Mr W Schrage, Secretary to the UNECE Convention on the Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context, ho provided updates on the implementation of the Espoo Convention, and to Mr J. Reynolds, DG Environment of the European Commission for the critical review of the manuscript. Stockholm Environment Institute Tallinn Centre wishes to thank the Ministry of Natural Resources of the Russian Federation for the support and assistance during the preparation of the workshop of stakeholders of transboundary environmental assessment on 21 September 2007 in Moscow and Regional Environmental Centre of Russia for advice and facilitation of the workshop organisation.
26
11 Bibliography (2004). Guidelines on the Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context for Central Asian Countries. The Regional Environmental Centre Central Asia: 24. Butylina, T., Morozov, B. et al. (2007). National Brief on Legislative and Insitutional Measures for the Protection and Sustainable Development of the Caspian Sea Environment in the Russian Federation. Moscow, UNEP Regional Office For Europe, International project "Caspian Environment Programme" (CEP), Centre for International Projects (CIP): 47. European_Commission (2006). Terms of Reference for Establishing a Dialogue on Environment between the Ministry of Natural Resources of the Russian Federation and the Directorate General for Environment of the European Commission, 10 Oct 2006, Helsinki: 3. HELCOM (2005). HELCOM Guidance on EIA UNECE (2003). Guidelines of the Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context in the Caspian Sea Region. Bakuu, UNEP, Caspian Environment Programme: 50. UNECE (2005). Draft multilateral agreement of South-East countries under the Convention of Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context. UNECE. (2006). "Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) in Transboundary Context." from http://www.unece.org/env/EIA/procstep.htm
UNECE. (2006). "Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in Transboundary Context, Review of Implementation in the period 2003-2005." from http://www.unece.org/env/eia/review2006.htm. UNECE. (2007). "Participants of the Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in Transboundary Context." from http://www.unece.org/env/eia/convratif.html. UNECE_2. "Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in Transboundary Context, Review of Implementation 2006 ", from http://www.unece.org/env/eia/review2006.htm. UNECE_3. "Participants of the Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in Transboundary Context." from http://www.unece.org/env/eia/convratif.html.
27
