Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-hgkh8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-27T19:09:22.829Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Public Voices and Environmental Decisions: The Escazú Agreement in Comparative Perspective

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2023

Uzuazo Etemire*
Affiliation:
Princeton Institute for International and Regional Studies, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ (United States (US)); and Department of Jurisprudence & International Law, Faculty of Law, University of Port Harcourt, Port Harcourt, Rivers State (Nigeria).

Abstract

Since the Escazú Agreement entered into force in 2021, many have looked forward to the realization of its goal of further entrenching environmental democratic rights and enabling sustainable development in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) region. The severe environmental and related human rights challenges in the region have caught global attention, and the Agreement is most timely in its pursuit of contributing to addressing the situation. This article assesses the quality of, and the extent to which, the right of the public to participate in environmental decision-making processes under the Escazú Agreement can enable the regime to achieve its goal, and how best this right might be strengthened where necessary. This assessment is executed within the context of local peculiarities of the LAC region and good practice in the field, as reflected in the Aarhus Convention and the UNEP Bali Guidelines. The study finds that while aspects of the participatory right regime in the Escazú Agreement are sound – and align with or go beyond existing good practice – some key provisions require improvement in order to increase the effectiveness of the Agreement.

Type
Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

I heartily thank the Fung Global Fellowship Program of Princeton University for providing the financial and general academic support required to complete this research. I also thank Erezi Oduwaye for her research assistance, as well as the anonymous peer reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions. Competing interests: The author declares none.

References

1 Escazú (Costa Rica), 4 Mar. 2018, in force 22 Apr. 2021, available at: https://repositorio.cepal.org/bitstream/handle/11362/43583/1/S1800428_en.pdf.

2 The World Bank, ‘Earth Day Marks Entry into Force of Escazú Agreement, a New Environmental Law Treaty for Latin America and the Caribbean’, 22 Apr. 2021, available at: https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2021/04/22/earth-day-marks-entry-into-force-of-escaz-agreement-a-new-environmental-law-treaty-for-latin-america-and-the-caribbean.

3 ‘Environmental democracy’ is a subset of the political thought of participatory democracy that emphasizes the critical role of the public, besides government and developers, in ensuring effective environmental governance and sustainable development, through the provision of the public rights to access information and participate in decision-making processes, and of access to justice in environmental matters: Bandi, G., ‘Introduction into the Concept of Environmental Democracy’, in Bandi, G. (ed.), Environmental Democracy and Law: Public Participation in Europe (Europa Law, 2014), pp. 37Google Scholar.

4 Adopted by the UN Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro (Brazil), 3–14 June 1992, UN Doc. A/CONF.151/26/Rev.1 (Vol. I), available at: https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/generalassembly/docs/globalcompact/A_CONF.151_26_Vol.I_Declaration.pdf. Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration promotes the idea that public access to information, decision-making processes, and justice in environmental matters is vital for effective environmental governance.

5 Escazú Agreement, Preamble, paras 1–2.

6 UN Declaration on the Application of Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, adopted by 10 governments from LAC at the UN Conference on Sustainable Development, Rio de Janeiro (Brazil), 20–22 June 2012, UN Doc. A/CONF.216.13, available at: https://accessinitiative.org/sites/default/files/declaracion_principio_10_english.pdf.

7 UN Economic and Social Council Res. 2021/31, ‘Follow-up to the Regional Agreement on Access to Information, Public Participation and Justice in Environmental Matters in Latin America and the Caribbean’, 22 July 2021, UN Doc. E/RES/2021/31, 30 July 2021, available at: https://www.un.org/ecosoc/en/documents/resolutions?year%5Bvalue%5D=2022&page=72&order=field_symbol&sort=asc.

9 Art. 1 Escazú Agreement (emphasis added).

10 Pring, G. & Noe, S.Y., ‘The Emerging International Law of Public Participation Affecting Global Mining, Energy, and Resources Development’, in Zillman, D.N., Lucas, A.R. & Pring, G. (eds), Human Rights in National Resource Development: Public Participation in the Sustainable Development of Mining and Energy Resource (Oxford University Press, 2002), pp. 1176CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 11.

11 UN Human Rights Council, ‘The Right to a Safe, Clean, Healthy and Sustainable Environment’, 5 Oct. 2021, UN Doc. A/HRC/48/L.23/Rev.1.

12 CIVICUS, ‘ESCAZÚ: The Work of Civil Society Made a Huge Difference’, 12 Feb. 2019, available at: https://www.civicus.org/index.php/media-resources/news/interviews/3728-escazu-the-work-of-civil-society-made-a-huge-difference.

13 Ibid.

14 Ibid.

15 Defenders, Global, At What Cost? (Global Witness, 2019), p. 8Google Scholar.

16 See B. Barton, ‘Underlying Concepts and Theoretical Issues in Public Participation in Resource Development’, in Zillman, Lucas & Pring, n. 10 above, pp. 77–120, at 77, 105. See also Bodansky, D., ‘Legitimacy’, in Bodansky, D., Brunnée, J. & Hey, E. (eds), The Oxford Handbook of International Environmental Law (Oxford University Press, 2007), pp. 704–23Google Scholar.

17 Burton, P., ‘Conceptual, Theoretical and Practical Issues in Measuring the Benefits of Public Participation’ (2009) 15(3) Evaluation, pp. 263–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 265.

18 D. Kapur & R. Webb, ‘Governance-related Conditionalities of the International Financial Institutions’, UN Conference on Trade and Development G-24 Discussion Paper Series, No. 6, UN Doc. UNCTAD/GDS/MDPB/G24/6, Aug., 2000, p. 7, available at: https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/pogdsmdpbg24d6.en.pdf.

19 Aarhus (Denmark), 25 June 1998, in force 30 Oct. 2001, available at: http://www.unece.org/env/pp/treatytext.html.

20 UNEP Decision SS.XI/5, Part A, 26 Feb. 2010, UN Doc. UNEP/GCSS.XI/11, available at: https://www.unep.org/resources/publication/guidelines-development-national-legislation-access-information-public (Bali Guidelines).

21 UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation, ‘Regional Trends: Latin America and the Caribbean’, available at: https://en.unesco.org/culture-development/regional-trends/latin-america-caribbean.

22 Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, Stockholm (Sweden), 16 June 1972, UN Doc. A/CONF.48/14/Rev. 1, Principles 4, 13, 15–20, available at: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/523249?ln=en.

23 The World Commission on Environment and Development, Our Common Future (Oxford University Press, 1987), p. 43.

24 Squintani, K.J. de Graaf & L., ‘Sustainable Development, Principles of Environmental Law and the Energy Sector’, in Roggenkamp, M.M., de Graaf, K.J. & Fleming, R. (eds), Energy Law, Climate Change and the Environment (Edward Elgar, 2021), pp. 4151Google Scholar, at 43.

25 Gaines, S., ‘The Energy Revolution as Sustainable Development’, in Squintani, L. & Vedder, H.H.B., Sustainable Energy United in Diversity: Challenges and Approaches in Energy Transition in the EU (Intersentia, 2014), pp. 723Google Scholar.

26 De Graaf & Squintani, n. 24 above. See also Merkouris, P., ‘Sustainable Development and Best Available Techniques in International and European Law’, in Makuch, K.E. & Pereira, R. (eds), Environmental and Energy Law (Wiley-Blackwell, 2012), pp. 3760Google Scholar, at 39.

27 Pring & Noe, n. 10 above, p. 22.

28 UN Economic and Social Council, ‘Assessment of Progress in Sustainable Development since Rio 1992 for Member States of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe’, 25 Sept. 2001, UN Doc. ECE/AC.22/2001/3, p. xiv, available at: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/448837?ln=en.

29 See Kravchenko, S., ‘Strengthening Implementation of MEAs: The Innovative Aarhus Compliance Mechanism’, in Zaelke, D., Kaniaru, D. & Kruzikova, E. (eds), Making Law Work: Environmental Compliance and Sustainable Development (Cameron May, 2005), pp. 258–61Google Scholar, at 259.

30 See Tardi, G., ‘Law as a Counterweight to Politicisation in Democratic Public Management’ (2012) 38(4) Commonwealth Law Bulletin, pp. 591615CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 595–6; and Michaels, R., ‘“One Size Can Fit All”: Some Heretical Thoughts on the Mass Production of Legal Transplants’, in Frankenberg, G. (ed.), Order from Transfer: Comparative Constitutional Design and Legal Culture (Edward Elgar, 2013), pp. 5678CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 68ff.

31 UN General Assembly (UNGA), ‘The Future We Want’, 20–22 June 2012, UN Doc. A/RES/66/288, available at: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/733FutureWeWant.pdf.

32 Ibid., paras 10, 43.

33 Ibid., para. 99.

34 S. Stec, ‘Developing Standards for Procedural Environmental Rights through Practice: The Changing Character of Rio Principle 10’, in J. Jendrośka & M. Bär (eds), Procedural Environmental Rights: Principle X in Theory and Practice (Intersentia, 2017), pp. 3–18.

35 UNGA, ‘Transforming our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development’, 21 Oct. 2015, UN Doc. A/RES/70/1, available at: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/21252030%20Agenda%20for%20Sustainable%20Development%20web.pdf.

36 K. Bosselmann, The Principle of Sustainability, 2nd edn (Routledge, 2016), p. 5.

37 See Chimhowu, A.O., Hulme, D. & Munro, L.T., ‘The “New” National Development Planning and Global Development Goals: Processes and Partnerships’ (2019) 120 World Development, pp. 7989CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and UN Development Group, ‘The Sustainable Development Goals are Coming to Life: Stories of Country Implementation and UN Support’, 18 July 2016, available at: https://unsdg.un.org/sites/default/files/SDGs-are-Coming-to-Life-UNDG-1.pdf.

38 Secretariat of the UN Committee of Experts on Public Administration, ‘Principles of Effective Governance for Sustainable Development’, July 2018, UN Doc. E/2018/44-E/C.16/2018/8.

39 UN, ‘Report of the Global Conference on the Sustainable Development of Small Island Developing States’, Bridgetown (Barbados), 25 Apr.–6 May 1994, UN Doc. A/CONF.167/9, Ch. 1, Resolution 1, Annex II, 1994.

40 UN, ‘Report of the International Meeting to Review the Implementation of the Programme of Action for the Sustainable Development of Small Island Developing States’, Port Louis (Mauritius), 10–14 Jan. 2005, UN Doc. A/CONF.207/11, Ch. 1, Resolution 1, Annex II, 2005.

41 UNGA, ‘SIDS Accelerated Modalities of Action (SAMOA) Pathway’, 14 Nov. 2014, UN Doc. A/RES/69/15.

42 See, e.g., Barbados Programme of Action, n. 39 above, paras 26, 34, 47–8; Mauritius Strategy, n. 40 above, paras 14–5, 44–5, 74; and SAMOA Pathway, n. 41 above, paras 27, 40, 79.

43 See Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), CAF Development Bank of Latin America & UN Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), ‘Institutions to Make the State Deliver in Latin America and the Caribbean’, in OECD et al., Latin American Economic Outlook 2018: Rethinking Institutions for Development (OECD, 2018), pp. 170–1; and A. Akhmouch, ‘Water Governance in Latin America and the Caribbean: A Multi-Level Approach’, OECD Regional Development Working Papers, 2012/04, 2012, pp. 41–2, available at: https://www.oecd.org/regional/regionaldevelopment/50064981.pdf.

44 UN ECLAC, ‘Observatory on Principle 10 in Latin America and the Caribbean of the ECLAC’, available at: https://observatoriop10.cepal.org/en.

45 See Saramaka People v. Suriname (Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs) IACtHR Ser. C No. 172 (28 Nov. 2007), paras 129, 133; and Claude-Reyes et al. v. Chile (Merits, Reparations and Costs) IACtHR Ser. C No. 151 (19 Sept. 2006), paras 79, 86–7. See also E. Grant, ‘The American Convention on Human Rights and Environmental Rights Standards’, in S. Turner et al. (eds), Environmental Rights: The Development of Standards (Cambridge University Press, 2019), pp. 60–92, at 70–4.

46 See Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), National Jurisprudence on Freedom of Expression and Access to Information, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.147 CIDH/RELE/INF.10/13, 5 Mar. 2013, paras 28, 183. See generally U. Etemire, ‘A Fresh Perspective on the Human Right to Political Participation and Environmental Decision Making in Nigeria’ (2018) 26(4) African Journal of International and Comparative Law, pp. 565–84.

47 UN ECLAC, n. 44 above. See also nn. 61–5 below.

48 Ibid.

49 CIVICUS, n. 12 above.

50 M.A.H. Trujillo, ‘Infrastructure Development in Latin America and its Challenges with Local and Indigenous Communities’, Italian Institute for International Political Studies, 30 Mar. 2020, available at: https://www.ispionline.it/en/pubblicazione/infrastructure-development-latin-america-and-its-challenges-local-and-indigenous-communities-25512.

51 Ibid.

52 Ibid.

53 The 9 LAC countries are: Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, French Guiana, Guyana, Peru, Suriname, and Venezuela.

54 R. Pereira & B. Garcia, ‘Editorial: The Legal Protection of the Amazon Rainforest’ (2021) 30(2) Review of European, Comparative and International Environmental Law, pp. 157–61, at 157.

55 See J. Bendel & T. Stephens, ‘Turning to International Litigation to Protect the Amazon?’ (2021) 30(2) Review of European, Comparative and International Environmental Law, pp. 173–83.

56 See Amazon Watch, ‘The Amazon Sacred Headwaters: Indigenous Rainforest “Territories for Life” under Threat’, Dec. 2019, available at: https://amazonwatch.org/news/2019/1209-the-amazon-sacred-headwaters; P. Fearnside, ‘Challenges for Sustainable Development in Brazilian Amazonia’ (2018) 26(2) Sustainable Development, pp. 141–9.

57 Ibid.

58 See C.A.R. Agudelo et al., ‘Land Use Planning in the Amazon Basin: Challenges from Resilience Thinking (2020) 25(1) Ecology and Society, article 8, available at: https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-11352-250108; M. Battiste & M. Reyes, ‘Stakeholder Engagement: A Foundation to Sustainable Development in the Amazon’, GT Global, 10 Sept. 2020, available at: https://dt-global.com/company/blog/september-10th-2020/stakeholder-engagement-in-the-amazon.

59 J. Ennes, ‘Illegal Logging Reaches Amazon's Untouched Core, “Terrifying” Research Shows’, Mongabay, 15 Sept. 2021, available at: https://news.mongabay.com/2021/09/illegal-logging-reaches-amazons-untouched-core-terrifying-research-shows; F. Wenzel et al., ‘Paper Maze and Lack of Transparency Cloak Investment in Companies Involved in Amazon Deforestation’, Mongabay, 11 Aug. 2020, available at: https://news.mongabay.com/2020/08/paper-maze-and-lack-of-transparency-cloak-investment-in-companies-involved-in-amazon-deforestation; UNGA, ‘Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders’, 3 Aug. 2016, UN Doc. A/71/281, paras 34, 50, 69, available at: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/831293?ln=en.

60 UN ECLAC, ‘Access to Information, Participation and Justice in Environmental Matters in Latin America and the Caribbean: Towards Achievement of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development’, 2018, UN Doc. LC/TS.2017/83, pp. 103–5, available at: https://repositorio.cepal.org/bitstream/handle/11362/43302/S1701020_en.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y.

61 To access the laws, see UN ECLAC, n. 44 above, ‘Participation’, available at: https://observatoriop10.cepal.org/en/rights/participation.

62 For the relevant laws and provisions, see ibid.

64 See Environmental Framework Act, ibid., Arts 1, 3, 11.

65 For details, see UN ECLAC, n. 60 above, pp. 81–91.

66 J. Ebbesson et al., The Aarhus Convention: An Implementation Guide, 2nd edn (UNECE, 2014), p. 60.

67 UN ECLAC & CCJ Academy of Law, ‘Ensuring Environmental Access Rights in the Caribbean: Analysis of Selected Case Law’, 2018, UN Doc. LC/TS.2018/31/Rev.1, p. 7, available at: https://repositorio.cepal.org/bitstream/handle/11362/43549/S1800510_en.pdf.

68 UN ECLAC, n. 60 above, pp. 103–4 (emphasis added).

69 See S. Whittaker, The Right of Access to Environmental Information (Cambridge University Press, 2021), pp. 33–59; U. Etemire, ‘Public Access to Environmental Information: A Comparative Analysis of Nigerian Legislation with International Best Practice’ (2014) 3(1) Transnational Environmental Law, pp. 149–72, at 151–6; G. Parola, Environmental Democracy at the Global Level: Rights and Duties for a New Citizenship (De Gruyter Open, 2013), p. 91.

70 E. Barritt, ‘Global Values, Transnational Expression: From Aarhus to Escazú’, in V. Heyvaert & L. Duvic-Paoli (eds), Research Handbook on Transnational Environmental Law (Edward Elgar, 2020), pp. 198–214, Part II.

71 L. De Silva, ‘Escazú Agreement 2018: A Landmark for the LAC Region’ (2018) 2(1) Chinese Journal of Environmental Law, pp. 93–8, at 93.

72 K. Sommermann, ‘Transformative Effects of the Aarhus Convention in Europe’ (2017) 77 Zeitschrift für ausländisches öfentliches Recht und Völkerrecht, pp. 321–37. See generally, Ebbesson et al., n. 66 above.

73 S. Stec & S. Casey-Lefkowitz, The Aarhus Convention: An Implementation Guide (UN, 2000), p. v. See also U. Etemire, Law and Practice on Public Participation in Environmental Matters: The Nigerian Example in Transnational Comparative Perspective (Routledge, 2015).

74 UNECA, Improving Public Participation in the Sustainable Development of Mineral Resources in Africa (UNECA, 2004), pp. 15–6, 37.

75 S. Whittaker, ‘The Right of Access to Environmental Information and Legal Transplant Theory: Lessons from London and Beijing’ (2017) 6(3) Transnational Environmental Law, pp. 509–30, at 511.

76 De Silva, n. 71 above, p. 94. See also M. Lavrik, A. Jimenez & M. Vilela, ‘The Earth Charter and the Regional Treaties Implementing Access Rights: Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration’, Earth Charter International, June 2018, pp. 16–2, available at: https://earthcharter.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Principle-10_Aarhus-and-Escazu-Treaty-Article-1-3.pdf.

77 See, e.g., European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), Taşkin v. Turkey, Appl. No. 46117/99, Judgment, 10 Nov. 2004. In this case, although Turkey was not a party to the Aarhus Convention, the ECtHR directly read the provisions of the Aarhus Convention into the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR), to which Turkey is a party, ‘in a particularly extensive form’ in deciding the matter; see A. Boyle, ‘Human Rights and the Environment: Where Next?’ (2012) 23(3) European Journal of International Law, pp. 613–42, at 624. ECHR, Rome (Italy), 4 Nov. 1950, in force 3 Sept. 1953, available at: http://www.echr.coe.int/pages/home.aspx?p=basictexts.

78 E.g., Chile has largely adopted the Aarhus Convention's definition of ‘environmental information’ in its revised General Environmental Framework Law (2010), Law No. 20.417: J.B. Soto, ‘El acceso a la información pública y la justicia ambiental’ [‘Access to Public Information and to Environmental Justice’] (2010) 34 Revista de derecho (Valparaíso), pp. 571–96. For the influence of the Aarhus Convention (n. 19 above) on Brazilian legislation, see S.A.N. da Nóbrega, ‘Access to Environmental Information: A Comparative Analysis of the Aarhus Convention with Brazilian Legislation’ (2011) 2 Environmental Law Network International, pp. 87–95, at 87–8.

79 Duyck, S., ‘Promoting the Principles of the Aarhus Convention in International Forums: The Case of the UN Climate Change Regime’ (2015) 22(4) Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law, pp. 123–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

80 UNECE, Meeting of the Parties (MoP) to the Aarhus Convention, ‘Draft Decision on Accession of Guinea Bissau to the Convention’, 10 Mar. 2021, UN Doc. ECE/MP.PP/WG.1/2021/21, available at: https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2021-04/ECE_MP.PP_WG.1_2021_21_E.pdf.

81 Geneva Environmental Network, ‘Welcome Guinea-Bissau: Opening a New Dimension for Aarhus Convention’, Aarhus MOP7 Side Event, 15 Oct. 2021, available at: https://www.genevaenvironmentnetwork.org/events/welcome-guinea-bissau-opening-a-new-dimension-for-aarhus-aahrus-mop7-side-event.

82 UNECE, MoP to the Aarhus Convention, ‘Report of the Seventh Session of the Meeting of the Parties’, 17 Feb. 2022, UN Doc. ECE/MP.PP/2021/2, para. 84, available at: https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2022-07/ECE_MP.PP_2021_2_E.pdf.

83 UNECE, MoP to the Aarhus Convention, ‘Report of the Second Extraordinary Session of the Meeting of the Parties’, 15 Oct. 2010, UN Doc. ECE/MP.PP/2010/2, paras 19 and 20, available at: https://unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/pp/prtr/docs/2011/ece_mp.pp_2010_2_eng.pdf.

84 Bali Guidelines, n. 20 above, Preamble.

85 U. Etemire, ‘Insights on the UNEP Bali Guidelines and the Development of Environmental Democratic Rights’ (2016) 28(3) Journal of Environmental Law, pp. 393–413, at 398–403.

86 Stec, n. 34 above, p. 5.

87 Etemire, n. 85 above, p. 398.

88 See UNGA Res. 2997(XXVII), ‘Institutional and Financial Arrangements for International Environmental Co-operation’, 15 Dec. 1972, UN Doc. A/RES/2997(XXVII), Art. 1, available at: http://www.un-documents.net/a27r2997.htm.

89 Emphasis added.

90 See E. Mitrotta, ‘Strengthening Conservation through Participation: Procedural Environmental Rights of Local Communities in Transboundary Protected Areas’, in Jendrośka & Bär (eds), n. 34 above, pp. 363–86.

91 Arts 2(5) and 3(9) Aarhus Convention; see also footnote to Bali Guidelines, n. 20 above, Guideline 8.

92 UN ECLAC, ‘Preliminary Document of the Regional Instrument on Access to Information, Participation and Justice on Environmental Matters in Latin America and the Caribbean’, 5 May 2015, UN Doc. LC/L.3987 (Preliminary Version of the Escazú Agreement), Arts 2, 5(12), available at: https://repositorio.cepal.org/bitstream/handle/11362/37953/1/S1500260_en.pdf.

93 Jendrośka, S. Stec & J., ‘The Escazú Agreement and the Regional Approach to Rio Principle 10: Process, Innovation, and Shortcomings’ (2019) 31(3) Journal of Environmental Law, pp. 533–45Google Scholar, at 544.

94 Parola, S. Guerra & G., ‘Implementing Principle 10 of the 1992 Rio Declaration: A Comparative Study of the Aarhus Convention 1998 and the Escazú Agreement 2018’ (2019) 2(55) Revista Jurídica, pp. 13Google Scholar3, at 20.

95 See UNECE, Compliance Committee, ‘Findings and Recommendations with regard to Communication ACCC/C/2010/50 concerning Compliance by the Czech Republic’, 29 June 2012, UN Doc. ECE/MP.PP/C.1/2012/11, para. 66 (the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee holding that ‘the definition of “the public concerned” under the Convention is still very broad … whether members of the public have an interest in the decision-making depends on whether their property and other related rights (in rem rights), social rights or other rights or interests relating to the environment may be impaired by the proposed activity’ (emphasis added). See also Ebbesson et al., n. 66 above, p. 57 (noting that ‘[w]ith respect to the criterion of “having an interest”, the definition appears to go well beyond the kind of language that is usually found in legal tests of “sufficient interest” … In particular it should be read to include not only members of the public whose legal interests or rights guaranteed under law might be impaired by the proposed activity. Potentially affected interests may also include social rights such as the right to be free from injury or the right to a healthy environment. It also applies, however, to a category of the public that has an unspecified interest in the decision-making procedure’ (emphasis added)).

96 Arts 2(5) and 3(9) Aarhus Convention; see also footnote to Bali Guidelines, n. 20 above, Guideline 8.

97 UNECE, Compliance Committee, ‘Report of the Compliance Committee on its Seventh Meeting (Addendum): Findings and Recommendations with regard to Communication ACCC/C/2004/05 concerning Compliance by Turkmenistan’, 18 Feb. 2005, UN Doc. ECE/MP.PP/C.1/2005/2/Add.5, para. 16, available at: https://unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/documents/2005/pp/c.1/ece.mp.pp.c1.2005.2.Add.5.e.pdf.

98 See Jendrośka, J., ‘Procedural Environmental Rights: Observations on the Escazú Agreement as Compared with the Aarhus Convention’, in de Graaf, K. et al. (eds), Grensoverstijgende Rechtsbeoefening: Liber Amicorum Jan Jans (Uitgeverij Paris, 2021), pp. 345–53Google Scholar, at 349–50.

99 It is quite clear that such requirements must not be discriminatory, overly burdensome or politically motivated, and that each party's legal framework must generally encourage the establishment of environmental NGOs and their participation in relevant decision-making processes; see Art. 3(4) Aarhus Convention, and Ebbesson et al., n. 66 above, p. 58.

100 J.Z. Madrid, ‘Definitions of the Aarhus Convention v. the Proposal for a New Latin America and the Caribbean Instrument: Mapping the Differences in the Material Scope of Procedural Environmental Rights in International Law’, in Jendrośka & Bär (eds), n. 34 above, pp. 39–58, at 51; the proviso sought to be included in the definition of ‘the public’ in Escazú was ‘in accordance with national legislation or practice’.

101 Emphasis added.

102 Ebbesson et al., n. 66 above, p. 133.

103 Art. 6(1)(b) Aarhus Convention. Also, see generally, Rio Declaration, n. 4 above, Principles 17 and 19.

104 Art. 6(1)(a) and Annex 1 Aarhus Convention.

105 Preliminary Version of the Escazú Agreement, n. 92 above, Art. 8(15), provides that ‘[i]n all cases, public participation shall be guaranteed in projects and activities related to mining, electricity generation, production activities and certain uses of hazardous substances and treatment and disposal of waste… [and] projects and activities relating to coastal development’. Compared with the more definite Aarhus list, this initially proposed Escazú list appears to be quite nebulous and could have included too many projects and activities with negligible (rather than substantial) impact on the environment, creating a situation where public participation will be impossible to undertake in all such cases.

106 Art. 6(1)(c) Aarhus Convention.

107 Art. 7(3) Escazú Agreement. While the meaning of ‘legally binding instruments’ (such as rules, regulations, statutes) is clear, ‘[a] policy may … be considered as the inspiration and guidance for actions, a plan as a set of co-ordinated and timed objectives for the implementation of the policy, and a programme as a set of projects in a particular area’: Wood, C. & Djeddour, M., ‘Strategic Environmental Assessment: EA of Policies, Plans and Programmes’ (1992) 10(1) Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, pp. 322CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 8.

108 Arts 7 and 8 Aarhus Convention; Bali Guidelines, n. 20 above, Guideline 13. For the scope of these provisions, see Wates, J., ‘The Aarhus Convention: A Driving Force for Environmental Democracy (2005) 2(1) Journal for European Environmental & Planning Law, pp. 211CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 6.

109 Gauthier, M., Simard, L. & Waaub, J., ‘Public Participation in Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA): Critical Review and the Quebec (Canada) Approach’ (2011) 31(1) Environmental Impact Assessment Review, pp. 4860CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 51.

110 H. Abaza, R. Bisset & B. Sadler, Environmental Impact Assessment and Strategic Impact Assessment: Towards an Integrated Approach (UNEP, 2004), pp. 67–8.

111 Ibid., p. 68.

112 Richardson, B.J. & Razzaque, J., ‘Public Participation in Environmental Decision-Making’, in Richardson, B.J. & Wood, S. (eds), Environmental Law for Sustainability (Hart, 2006), pp. 165–94Google Scholar, at 180. See also Alshuwaikhat, H.M., ‘Strategic Environmental Assessment Can Help Solve Environmental Impact Assessment Failures in Developing Countries’ (2005) 25(4) Environmental Impact Assessment Review, pp. 307–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

113 Gilpin, A., Environmental Impact Assessment: Cutting Edge for the Twenty-First Century (Cambridge University Press, 1995), p. 172Google Scholar.

114 Therivel, R. & Partidario, M.R., ‘Introduction’, in Therivel, R. & Partidario, M.R. (eds), The Practice of Strategic Environmental Assessment (Earthscan, 1996), pp. 112Google Scholar, at 5.

115 Gilpin, n. 113 above, p. 76.

116 Pring & Noe, n. 10 above, p. 11.

117 P. Andre et al., ‘Public Participation: International Best Practice Principles’, IAIA, Special Publication Series No 4, Jan. 2006, p. 2.

118 Art. 7(6) and (17) Escazú Agreement.

119 Ibid., Art. 7(4) and (6)(d).

120 Art. 6(2) and (4) Aarhus Convention; Bali Guidelines, n. 20 above, Guidelines 8 and 10.

121 Art. 7(6) Escazú Agreement (emphasis added).

122 See M. Poustie, Environmental Justice in SEPA's Environmental Protection Activities: A Report for the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA, 2004), pp. 87–8.

123 Jendrośka, J., ‘Public Participation in Environmental Decision-Making: Interactions between the Convention and EU Law and Other Key Legal Issues in Its Implementation in the Light of the Opinion of the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee’, in Pallemaerts, M. (ed.), The Aarhus Convention at Ten: Interactions and Tensions Between Conventional International Law and EU Environmental Law (Europa Law, 2011), pp. 92147Google Scholar, at 133.

124 Emphasis added.

125 Bali Guidelines, n. 20 above, Guideline 8. See also UNEP, Putting Rio Principle 10 into Action: An Implementation Guide for the UNEP Bali Guidelines for the Development of National Legislation on Access to Information, Public Participation and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (UNEP, 2015), p. 74.

126 UNEP, ibid.

127 Andre et al., n. 117 above.

128 Preliminary Version of the Escazú Agreement, n. 92 above, Art. 8(2).

129 Art. 6(3) Aarhus Convention; see also Bali Guidelines, n. 20 above, Guideline 8; and UNEP, n. 12 above, p. 75.

130 UNECE, Compliance Committee, ‘Report of the Compliance Committee on its Nineteenth Meeting (Addendum): Findings and Recommendations with regard to Communication ACCC/C/2006/16 concerning Compliance by Lithuania’, 7 Mar. 2008, UN Doc. ECE/MP.PP/2008/5/Add.6, para. 69, available at: https://unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/documents/2008/pp/mop3/ece_mp_pp_2008_5_add_6_e.pdf.

131 UNECE, Compliance Committee, ‘Report of the Compliance Committee on its Twenty-sixth Meeting (Addendum): Findings and Recommendations with regard to Communication ACCC/C/2008/24 concerning Compliance by Spain’, 8 Feb, 2011, UN Doc. ECE/MP.PP/C.1/2009/8/Add.1, paras 90–2, available at: https://unece.org/DAM/env/pp/compliance/C2008-24/DFR/ece.mp.pp.c.1.2009.8.add.1_as_resubmitted.pdf.

132 Ebbesson et al., n. 66 above, p. 142.

133 Art. 7(1) Escazú Agreement.

134 Ibid., Art. 7(7).

135 Art. 6(7) Aarhus Convention; Bali Guidelines, n. 20 above, Guidelines 9 and 11.

136 See Arts 3(2), 6(3) and (4) Aarhus Convention; Bali Guidelines, n. 20 above, Guideline 9.

137 Art. 7(10) Escazú Agreement.

138 Ibid., Art. 7(11).

139 Ibid., Art. 7(13).

140 Ibid., Art. 7(14) and (16).

141 Ibid., Art. 7(2) and (3).

142 Art. 6(10) Aarhus Convention; Bali Guidelines, n. 20 above, Guideline 12; UNEP, n. 125 above, pp. 89–90.

143 Art. 7 Aarhus Convention (on ‘public participation concerning plans, programmes and policies relating to the environment’) expressly incorporates Art. 6(3), (4) and (8), and not Art. 6(10), which provides for public participation when public authorities ‘reconsider or updates the operating conditions’ for specific projects. Art 8 Aarhus Convention (on ‘public participation during the preparation of executive regulations and/or generally applicable legally binding normative instruments’) also does not contain any provision like Art. 6(10), as with Guideline 12 of the Bali Guidelines, n. 20 above.

144 Art. 6(8) Aarhus Convention; Bali Guidelines, n. 20 above, Guideline 11.

145 UNEP, n. 125 above, p. 87.

146 Popovic, N.A.F., ‘The Right to Participate in Decisions that Affect the Environment’ (1993) 10(2) Pace Environmental Law Review, pp. 683709Google Scholar, at 702.

147 UNEP, n. 125 above, p. 87.

148 Art. 6(9) Aarhus Convention; Bali Guidelines, n. 20 above, Guideline 11.

149 Andre et al, n. 117 above, p. 2.

150 Art. 8(2) Escazú Agreement.

151 Art. 9(1)–(2) Aarhus Convention; Bali Guidelines, n. 20 above, Guideline 11.

152 UNECE, Compliance Committee, ‘Report of the Compliance Committee on its Seventh Meeting (Addendum): Findings and Recommendations with regard to Communication ACCC/C/2004/3 concerning Compliance by Ukraine’, 14 Mar. 2005, UN Doc. ECE/MP.PP/C.1/2005/2/Add.3, para. 110.

153 UNEP, n. 125 above, pp. 88–9.