The Aarhus Convention Reporting Mechanism

1. The Aarhus Convention Reporting Mechanism National Implementation Reports 2011 Experience and lessons learned Aphrodite Smagadi, Aarhus Convention secretariat aphrodite.smagadi@unece.org

2. Reporting cycles • Two reporting cycles since establishment of reporting mechanism (Decision I/8) • First cycle (2005): 26 reports (30 Parties) = 87% • Second cycle (2008): 35 reports (41 Parties) = 85% • Third cycle (2011) – 44 Parties

3. Experience • Valuable information provided • Positive developments in legislative frameworks and practical implementation • Challenges to implementation identified

4. Practical challenges • Content – not always adequately addressed • Format and process • Timing and resources

5. Content: challenge • Some reports did not provide adequate answers to the questions Examples: • Parties provided lists of instruments without clarifying how they transposed the provisions of the Convention into national law • Requested information was provided in answer to different question

6. Content: recommendation • Address all questions • Do not forget GMO amendment • PPIF reporting format may be used as pilot • Consult guidance document prepared by the Compliance Committee

7. Format: challenges • Reports did not follow reporting format • Lack of clear structure • Secretariat had to re-format (agreed on a format with documents division)

8. Format: recommendations • First time? • Follow the structure of 2008 reports • Second or third time? • Use the previous report and work with track changes to • Enable recording of changes • Facilitate the translation • If previous report not published as official UN document, use submitted version + track changes

9. Process: challenge Public participation process was criticized as not having been performed in an adequate manner

10. Process: recommendations • Start as early as possible • REMEMBER: report must be submitted by second week of December 2010 • Two public consultations: • First: on the content of the report, before the first draft • Second: for comments, to incorporate in a subsequent draft

11. Timing: challenge • Reports were submitted after the deadline (some after MOP-3) • Translation delays • Refusal of UN conference services to translate and process as UN official documents

12. Timing: recommendation • Submit the reports by the set deadline: • 8 December 2010

13. Suggested timeline

14. 2011 Reporting cycle • Despite challenges, Parties decided at their third meeting (June 2008) to continue current reporting practice until MOP-4 (June 2011) • New electronic database in Aarhus Clearinghouse aims to make information easily accessible & allow for online submission of reports: http://apps.unece.org/ehlm/pp/NIR/index.asp

15. Compliance Committee GuidanceProcess • Enable broad, effective participation, as early as possible • Inter- and intra-agency consultations (identify in advance) • Public/stakeholder consultations (multi-stakeholder working groups) • Publicly available drafts • In the national language

16. Compliance Committee GuidanceContent • New information • Information on practical implementation • Common areas of difficulties

17. CC Guidance: new information • Significant amendments in the laws, regulations, etc. • Official interpretation of the laws • Guidance to the public on how to exercise their laws • New practical measures/arrangements with public authorities • Track-changes (consolidated report)

18. CC Guidance: practical implementation info • Challenge: insufficient information • Provide information on • practical measures • institutional arrangements • working groups • any budgetary allocation • capacity building (training)

19. CC Guidance: content checklist • Be specific • Follow the non-prescriptive list for possible consideration in the preparation of the NIRs (annex to the CC guidance for reporting)