Issues addressed

1. Jerzy JendrośkaMonitoring compliance of EU-funded projects with EIA and SEA Directives: lessons to be learned when promoting compliance with the Aarhus Convention Workshop on promoting the application of the principles of the Aarhus Convention in international forums Geneva, 23-24 February 2011 Opole University

2. Issues addressed • Problems with practical application of the Aarhus Convention • EU funds and direct applicability of EIA and SEA Directives • Experience with monitoring compliance with EIA and SEA Directives in Poland • Lessons learned and conclusions Opole University

3. Problems with practical application of the Aarhus Convention • Inadequate domestic legislation implementing the Convention • usually rather vague legal schemes • specific problems with the role of developers • Poor implementation in practice • Insufficient monitoring and enforcement Opole University

4. EU funds and direct applicability of EIA and SEA Directives • Legal basis • Regulation 1083/2006 (Art.47.1) - compliance with EIA and SEA a precondition for EU funding • Regulation 1828/2006 setting out rules for the implementation...(of Regulation 1083/2006 and Regulation 1080/2006) - Annex XXI point F( template for requests concerning major projects) • Applied directly by • European Commission • Member States: • authorities responsible for EU funding • courts Opole University

5. Consequences in practice • Inadequacies of implementing domestic legislation promptly detected • Current interpretation of the Directive (verdicts of the European Court of Justice) closely followed • Developers (beneficiaries of funding) interested in proper application of legal requirements • SEA Directive started to be implemented in practice only after 2006 because regional and local authorities had to prove it when applied for EU funding Opole University

6. Opole University

7. EIA Directive in Poland - supervisory bodies • Environmental supervisory authorities • central (General Enviornmental Directorate -DOS) - about 30 „EIA” specialists • regional - about 200 „EIA” specialists • Authorities responsible for EU funding • central (Regional Development Ministry, Nationa Environmental Fund, others) - about 100 „EIA” specialists • regional - (Marshal offices, regional enviornmental funds, others) - about 800 „EIA” specialists • advisory bodies - about 200 „EIA” specialists Opole University

8. EIA Directive in Poland - practice • In one (out of 16 regions) in 2010: • number of projects submitted for EU funding: 2200 • number of projects rejected because of alleged non-compliance with EIA Directive: 54 Opole University

9. EIA Directive in Poland - court review • Standard review • initiated by • project proponents • the public • based on Polish EIA law • Review related to rejection of EU funding • initiated by project proponents • based on EIA Directive • „initiated by project proponents or the public • based on Polish EIA law (incidentally on EIA Directive) • review initiated by proponents of rejected projects • based on EIA Directive Opole University

10. Lessons learned • EU funding scheme contributed to EIA and SEA Directives being (at least in Poland) • widely known • applied in practice • Direct reference to concrete provisions of directives works better then • reference to general principles • reference to domestic laws Opole University

11. Conclusions • Experience with EU funding can be applied to promote compliance in all Aarhus Parties • Aarhus Convention art 6 and 7 are sufficiently precise and interpreted by Compliance Committee to serve as a basis for a checklist • Need to refer directly Aarhus Convention would promote awareness and proper implementation regardless of gaps in domestic legislation Opole University