1 / 17

Enhancing Environmental Participation in Austria through Almaty Guidelines

Explore the application of Almaty guidelines in Austria, with findings, recommendations, and insights into participation in environmental law. Learn about the PPIF project and its impact on stakeholder engagement. 8 Relevant

rchung
Download Presentation

Enhancing Environmental Participation in Austria through Almaty Guidelines

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. Application of Almaty guidelines in Austria Thomas ALGE Justice & Environment OEKOBUERO 29 June 2010, Geneva

  2. Overview • Introduction of PPIF project • Findings as to Austrian application • Recommendations to improve situation

  3. Justice and Environment (J&E) • European Network-NGO with 12 member organizations from 12 EU and SEE countries • Implementation of Environmental Law • Legal support and litigation for the public concerned • Legal studies and policy recommendations OEKOBUERO – Coordination Office of Austrian Environmental organizations • 15 Austrian member organizations including • FoE Austria, Greenpeace CEE, WWF Austria • Focus on Environmental Law and public participation • Member of J&E, EEB and European ECO-Forum

  4. The „PPIF-project“ • Objectives • Assessment of Austrian PPIF practice • Raise awareness on Almaty guidelines • DevelopAustrian PPIF recommendations Funded by the Austrian Aarhus focal point (MoE) July to December 2009

  5. The „PPIF-project“ • Methodology • Interviews with various Austrian focal points (MoE and Foreign Affairs) • Interviews with Austrian NGOs • Climate, Biodiversity, CITES, Cartagena, Whaling, Alpine, Nuclear, general environmental matters

  6. The „PPIF-project“ • Output • Almaty-PPIF Info-Sheet • Stakeholder workshop to present results • Recommendations for practitioners • Distribution by newsletter • Publication in Austrian env. science journal

  7. General findings • Almaty guidelines not known, but Aarhus Conv. • PPIF practice acceptable • Limited no of players (sectors concerned, national vs international NGOs) • NGOs, but not civil servants, favor binding PPIF document • Personal contact and sympathy crucial • PPIF depends much on the subject matter (e.g. biodiversity vs nuclear)

  8. Findings: Information • Access to information • Not seen as major obstacle, apart from EU coordination • Access to documents more important than env. data • Access through international web-fora (e.g. CBD) • Active distribution not standard (positiv: Alpine Convention) • Personal contact crucial • No formalized procedure, ad hoc decisions • Information exchange is no one-way street • Refusal: reasoning requested

  9. Findings: Participation • Government official's experience • PP is seen as enriching • Only specific NGOs interested, sometimes hard to find any NGO • Political pressure on negotiators and emotional debates • Impact of PP varies, depending on subject matter • No formalized procedure • PP often in national decision making procedure

  10. Findings: Participation • The NGO's views • Intensity of PP varies widely • National delegation status preferable (e.g as to information flow and access) • Sometimes qualified observer status preferable • Early participation is crucial, only at conference too late • Strong influence from industry stakeholders

  11. Findings: Participation • NGO in national delegation? • Threats • Selection process? • Emotional debates • NGOs can not act as NGO.. (qualified observer preferable?.. Opportunities • Information flow and access • Enriched debate • Confidence building

  12. Findings: Participation • Financial support • No rules, practice varies • In most cases support of one NGO • Limited financial resources of national delegation • No formalized procedure, but wanted from NGOs

  13. Findings: Participation • Financial support • No rules, practice varies • In most cases support of one NGO • Limited financial resources of national delegation • No formalized procedure, but wanted from NGOs

  14. Recommendations:Information • Early pro-active distribution of information (e.g newsletter, website, Alpine Convention) • Regular information on intersessional issues (e.g. briefings, info-rounds) • Basic information on website with links to international fora (e.g. MoE CITES) • Access to EU-coordination • NGOs: Provide relevant information to government: No one-way street

  15. Recommendations:Participation • Early Information as to upcoming events, issues • Institutionalization of PPIF (e.g. rules, guidelines) • Coordination meetings before and during international conferences • Include NGOs in national delegations • Financial support for NGOs

  16. Final remarks/ recommendations • Exchange experience with other state departments on PPIF • Mutual faith and reliance are essential for PPIF • Aim to „change culture“ in „closed“ international bodies/sectors • Bottom up: Open approach by national delegations • Top down: Influence statutes and secretariats

  17. Contact thomas.alge@oekobuero.at www.justiceandenvironment.org www.oekobuero.at www.participate.org

More Related