1 / 22

“On the implementation of requirements of the PRTR Protocol to the Aarhus Convention”

“On the implementation of requirements of the PRTR Protocol to the Aarhus Convention”. Michael Stanley-Jones Environmental Information Management Officer Environment, Housing and Land Management Division United Nations Economic Commission for Europe WORKSHOP ON ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING

morey
Download Presentation

“On the implementation of requirements of the PRTR Protocol to the Aarhus Convention”

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. “On the implementation of requirements of the PRTR Protocol to the Aarhus Convention” Michael Stanley-Jones Environmental Information Management Officer Environment, Housing and Land Management Division United Nations Economic Commission for Europe WORKSHOP ON ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING AND REPORTING BYENTERPRISES 4-6 September 2006,Warsaw, Poland

  2. From the Aarhus Conventionto the Protocol on PRTRs UNECE Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters 25 June 1998 - Adoption of the Convention at the 4th Ministerial “Environment for Europe” Conference, Aarhus, Denmark. Signed by 39 countries and the European Community 30 Oct 2001- Entry into force of the Convention 21 May 2003 - Adoption of the Protocol on PRTRs at extra-ordinary meeting of the Parties, within the framework of the 5th Ministerial “Environment for Europe” Conference (Kiev, Ukraine)

  3. Status of Convention Ratifications Kyrgyzstan Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg * Malta Moldova, Rep. of Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden Tajikistan Turkmenistan Ukraine United Kingdom European Community * Albania Armenia Austria Azerbaijan Belarus Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland Former Yugoslav Rep. of Macedonia France Georgia Greece Hungary Italy Kazakhstan Convention total = 39 Parties (PRTR Protocol: 37 Signatories, including Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Serbia & Montenegro. Protocol Parties as 1 Sep 2006 indicated by * )

  4. Access to information provisions Selected features of Convention article 5 “Active Dissemination” • Transparency and accessibility of information systems • Immediate dissemination of information in cases of imminent threat to health or environment • Sufficient product information to ensure informed environmental choices • Pollutant release and transfer registers • Increased access to information through Internet • Article 5, paragraph 3 … each Party to ensure that environmental Information progressively becomes available In electronic databases which are easily accessible to the public through public telecommunication networks

  5. Legal basis of PRTR Protocol in Aarhus Convention • Legal basis: article 5, para. 9 and article 10, para. 2 (e) and (i) of the Aarhus Convention, requiring each Party “to take steps to establish progressively ... a coherent, nationwide system of pollution inventories or registers on a structured, computerized and publicly accessible database compiled through standardized reporting.” (art. 5, para. 9) … taking into account international processes and developments, including the elaboration of an appropriate instrument concerning pollution release and transfer registers or inventories ….” (art. 10, para. 2(i) )

  6. Requirements of Protocol on PRTRs • Facilities and pollutants covered • General obligations placed on Parties • Obligations placed on owners / operators • Elements of reporting • Quality assessment and validation • Future steps • and • Possible applications (not required)

  7. Facilities covered Facilities covered (annex I) include: • Thermal power stations and refineries • Mining and metallurgical industries • Chemical plants • Waste and waste-water management plants • Paper and timber industries • Intensive livestock production and aquaculture • Food and beverage production • Textiles, Tanneries, Shipbuilding

  8. Pollutants covered Pollutants covered (annex II) include: • Greenhouse gases • Acid rain pollutants • Ozone-depleting substances • Heavy metals • Certain carcinogens, such as dioxins TOTAL: 86 pollutants N.B. National registers may include additional facilities and substances, e.g. European Union includes 91 individual substances or groups of substances

  9. Government Chooses among various technical options for the design of a central, publicly accessibly register to determine the institutional framework required for ensuring a coordinated system of information flow to it Sets forth the rights and responsibilities of various key players, e.g. the obligation of pollutant-emitting facilities to report, and the right of the general public to participate in decisions concerning PRTRs

  10. Elements explicitly set forth in the Protocol or implicit in its requirements 1. Institution to manage the national PRTR system (art. 2, para. 5) 2. Structure for inter-agency coordination 3. Appropriate systems for enforcement (art. 3, para. 1) Collection, validation and management of data 4. Collection of data submitted by owners or operators of reporting facilities (art. 7, paras. 2 and 5) 5. Assessment of the quality of the data collected in terms of completeness, consistency and credibility (art. 10, para. 2) 6. Collection of information on releases from diffuse sources (art. 7, para. 4) 8. Development and management of a register comprising a structured, computerized database able to maintain data for 10 reporting years (art. 4, para. (j) and art. 5, para. 3) 9. Dissemination of information and training (arts. 8, 11 and 15).

  11. Basic obligation of operators To submit the information specified with respect to those pollutants and waste for which thresholds were exceeded Each Party decides with respect to a particular pollutant to apply either a release threshold or a manufacture, process or use (MPU) threshold will be used Facility operators do not choose under which requirement (pollutant threshold or MPU) to report

  12. Reporting requirements of operators • (Article 7 - continued) • Each Party shall require owners or operators of facilities specified • in annex I who • Release any pollutant specified in annex II in quantities exceeding • applicable thresholds, • Transfer off-site any pollutant in annex II in quantities exceeding • applicable thresholds, • Transfer off-site hazardous waste exceeding 2 tons per year • or other waste exceeding 2,000 tons per year, where the Party has • opted for waste-specific reporting (as in the European Union) • Transfer off-site any pollutant specified in annex II in waste water • destined for waste-water treatment in quantities exceeding the applicable • threshold • or • Undertake one or more activities specified in annex I at or above • the employee threshold specified in annex I, and • Manufacture, process or uses any pollutant specified in annex II

  13. Specific reporting elements • Name, street address, geographical location and activities • of the reporting facility • Name of the owner or operator and, as appropriate, company • Name and numerical identifierofeach specified pollutant • Amount of each specified pollutant released to the environment, • both in aggregate and according to whether release is to air, to • water, or to land, including underground injection • either • amountof each pollutanttransferred off-site in the reporting • year, distinguishing between amounts for disposal and for recovery, • and • name and address of facility receiving the transfer, • or • amount of waste transferred off-site, distinguishing between • hazardous waste and other waste, for any operations, indicating • whether waste is destined for recovery or disposal • and for transboundary movements of hazardous waste, • name and address of the recoverer or disposer and • actual site receiving the transfer

  14. Reporting elements(continued) • Amount of each specified pollutant in waste water transferred off-site • Type of methodology used to derive information on amounts, • indicating whether based on measurement, calculation or estimation • (M, C, E) • Information to include releases and transfers from routine and from • extraordinary events • Owners or operators to be required to collect releases and transfers • data needed “with appropriate frequency”, and to • Records of the data from which the reported information was derived • must be kept available for the competent authorities for 5 years, • including description of M, C or E.

  15. Quality assessment (Article 10) • Owners or operators are to assure the quality of the information • they report • Quality assessment of data duty of the Parties, in particular as to • completeness – consistency – credibility • taking into account guidelines developed by the MOP • Draft Guidance to implementation of the Protocol on PRTRs • Penultimate version released 31 July 2006 available on • web sites of UNECE Working Group on PRTRs and WGEMA

  16. ‘Best Available Information’ (BAI) standard(article 9, para. 2) • Owners or operators of facilities required to ensure the quality • of information they report and to use “best available information” • ‘Best available information’ may include • monitoring data • emission factors • mass balance • equations • indirect monitoring or other calculations • engineering judgments, and • other methods • Nb. EU adopting more stringent guidance on BAI

  17. Quality assurance and control • Calibration and maintenance of the monitoring system • Use of recognized quality management systems • Periodic checks by an external accredited laboratory • Certification of instruments and personnel under • recognized certification schemes • Elements for guidelines on strengthening environmental • monitoring and reporting by enterprises, para 36 (i) • (ECE/CEP/AC.10/2006/4)

  18. Validation • Where appropriate, validation should be done in accord • with internationally approved methodologies • e.g. ISO, European Committee for Standardization (CEN) • However, in some cases, national or sector methodologies • may be superior to Internationally-approved ones, • or such approval may be pending (“HOT ISSUE”) • Validation of data may be more easily achievable if • responsibility is delegated to local or regionalauthorities • or to the regional or local offices of national authorities, • since they will be closer to the operators and are more likely • to have an overview of their activities • Guidance on validation is evolving

  19. Next steps for Protocol’s future implementation • Setting up the Protocol’s institutional architecture: • rules of procedure and compliance review mechanism • financial arrangements • technical assistance mechanism, • international cooperation and reporting • International PRTR Coordinating Group • SAICM / ICCM etc • Completion of technical guidance on implementation • Further guidance on dissemination of PRTR information or data users’ guide suggested

  20. Possible future applications • Pan-European Environment and Health Information System (Environment-for-Europe Ministerial Conference / WHO Europe) • Commercial property management information systems (“due diligence” research, e.g. Environment Agency of England and Wales) • Integration into Global Reporting Initiative, Socially Responsible Investment (SRI), and evolving ISO standards and OECD guidelines • SAICM national performance tracking under ICCM • Convergence of regional PRTR systems (North American Taking Stock, European PRTR, East Asia?)

  21. PRTR success story “For the 10-year period from 1988 to 1997, atmospheric emissions of some 260 known carcinogens and reproductive toxins from the United States Toxics Release Inventory reporting facilities have been reduced by approximately 85% in the State of California, and by some 42% in the rest of the country (i.e., for all chemicals listed in California as known to cause either cancer or reproductive toxicity and reported as air emissions under TRI ).” From P. Sand (2002)

  22. MORE INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON THE AARHUS CONVENTION WEBSITE: http://www.unece.org/env/pp/prtr Aarhus Clearinghouse http://aarhusclearinghouse.unece.org

More Related