addressing threats to nature in the carpathians addressing threats to nature in the carpathians –...

Addressing Threats to Nature in the Carpathians

Addressing Threats

to nature in the Carpathians –

Legal and administrative instruments


Introduction

The Carpathians, aim and structure of presentation, legal and

administrative instruments


Carpathian Mountains

Europe’s greatest remaining wilderness area• Over half of Europe’s brown bears, wolves• Largest remaining areas of natural forest• Rich cultural landscapes


Carpathian Convention

• Came into force 2007• Ratified by all 7 Carpathian countries (CZ,

HU, PL, RO, SK, SF, UA)• Protection and sustainable development of

the Carpathians


Introduction

There are changing threats to natural heritage in the Carpathians from infrastructure development…

… but also some potentially powerful instruments for addressing these conflicts…

… but they must be used!


Aim of presentation

• Provide an understanding and overview of selected legal and administrative instruments for addressing conflicts between infrastructure and nature conservation in the Carpathians

• Especially for all stewards of high nature value areas

• For the Carpathians, but relevant to other areas as well


Structure of presentation

• Introduction• Threats to nature in the Carpathians• Overview of selected legal and

administrative instruments• Description of selected instruments


Additional materials available

• Handbook of selected legal and administrative instruments for addressing conflicts in the Carpathians

• Country reports on selected instruments in CZ, HU, PL and SK

• All available online at: http://www.panda.org/dcpo and

http://www.carpathianproject.eu


Carpathian treasures

• Carpathian treasures have been remarkably preserved

• This is quickly changing as the Carpathians become integrated into the global economy


New threats

For example:

• Tourism facilities

• Transportation networks, including motorways;

• Transmission networks, e.g. oil pipelines, power lines

• Mines, e.g. for gold

• Industrial installations

• Water infrastructure

• EU Trans-European Networks

• ca. €120 billion for investments in Carpathian regions of CZ, PL, SK, HU, RO (2007-13)


Threats – and opportunites

The Carpathians have a unique opportunity to:

• Follow the most modern path of development,

• Learn from the mistakes of their western neighbours and leap-frog the trends in older EU member states.

• Base their development on preserving and even enhancing the rich natural wealth of the region.


What kind of development?

• At least on paper, EU and Carpathian countries have some powerful tools in place for ensuring smart development – for ensuring that infrastructure development takes into account different interests, including conservation.

• A number of these tools are described in the next section.

• You can contribute to their better implementation by actively using them!


Selected instruments

Overview


Project planning

• Public participation and consultation in project development and planning

• It is to everyone’s advantage that possible conflicts are addressed before construction work has started!


Environmental assessments

• Important tool for integrating environmental considerations into the preparation of project, plans and programmes


Assessments of projects

• Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs)• Specialised assessments, e.g. EU Natura

2000 assessment


Assessments of plans, programmes

• Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEAs)

• Evaluation of plans and programmes that provide the framework for and anticipate specific projects, e.g. regional development plan.


Access to information

• Aarhus Convention

• Specifically requires relevant authorities to be as open and transparent as possible – passive and active provision of information.


Legal cases

• National courts – according to national legislation

• EU: European Court of Justice – in most cases not practical for NGOs and individuals

• Cannot take EU Member States to the European Court of Justice – only EU institutions

• Must prove that they are directly and individually affected by the action taken.


Complaints

EU bodies:• Complaint to European Commission• European Parliament Petitions Committee• European Ombudsman

International bodies:• Aarhus Convention• Bern Convention• Espoo Convention• Ramsar Convention


Turning paper into practice

• Legal and administrative tools for protecting nature that are on paper are only as strong as their application in practice.

• Use them!


Case study: Austrian motorways

• ASFINAG, Austrian motorway company

• Problems with a number of projects led to costly delays

• Led to a fundamental change in approach to project planning and preparation

• Thorough assessment, consultation and planning

• Higher short-term costs, but long-term savings


Case study: Via Baltica, Poland

• 1999-2000: national and regional road agencies approve plans to build Via Baltica through protected Biebrza Wetlands and Augustow Forest. NGOs call for SEA.

• 2004-05: EIAs completed, strongly criticised by environmental groups, who submit a complaint to the European Commission

• 2007: EC brings Polish government before European Court of Justice

• Work on disputed section of road halted


Selected instruments

Description and discussion


Strategic Environmental Assessment

• EU SEA Directive for EU members

• SEA Protocol of Espoo Convention: SEAs in transboundary context, not ratified or in force

• Potentially powerful tool as SEAs are undertaken much earlier in the decision making process than EIAs

• Applies as to plans and programmes, but not policies

• Provisions for involvement of relevant environment and health authorities as well as public consultation and involvement


How does the SEA work?

• Screening• Scoping• Consultation • Environmental report• Final decision• Monitoring


How can you use the SEA?

You can ensure that responsible authorities have:

• Properly identified environmental and health authorities, NGOs and other actors and involved them in the consultations procedure;

• Given them the early and effective opportunity within appropriate time frames to express their opinion on a particular plan or programme;

• Integrated NGOs and other’s opinions into the final decision.


Environmental Impact Assessment

• EU EIA Directive for EU members

• EIA of Espoo Convention: EIAs in transboundary context

• Apply to projects of a certain type and scope; Espoo Convention applies to projects with likely transborder impacts

• Provisions for involvement of relevant environment and health authorities as well as public consultation and involvement


How does the EU EIA work?

• Screening

• Scoping

• EIA Documentation

• Final decision


How does the Espoo EIA work?

• Notification• EIA Documentation• Consultation• Final decision• Disputes


How can you use the EIA?

You can ensure that:

• Relevant environmental authorities, NGOs and other actors have been identified and involved in the consultations procedure;

• That they have been given early and effective opportunity within appropriate time frames to express their opinion on a particular plan or programme;

• That environmental concerns have been taken into account in the final decision.


Natura 2000 Article 6 Assessment

• Applies to all EU member states

• Only applies to projects, plans or programmes that are likely to have a negative impact on habitats or species protected under Natura 2000.

• Applies to projects, plans or programmes occuring not only within but also outside of Natura 2000 areas.

• Focus specifically on biological processes and requirements, including life cycles of protected habitats and species.


How does it work?

• No mandatory process, but screening and scoping recommended

• Projects, plans or programmes can go forward despite negative assessments if they are of overriding public interest

• Assessment process similar and usually parallel to EIA/SEA, but distinct

• While EIAs focus on projects of a certain kind or scope, Article 6 Assessments focus on the effects of projects on the habitats and species protected.


How to use it

• Article 6 Assessments must involve authorities responsible for implementation and management of Natura 2000 network

• No process for public participation, but NGOs and individuals may be able to provide technical expertise

• Where there is disagreement with the results of an assessment, it can be argued before national courts and the European Commission


Natura 2000 Article 12 Assessment

• All EU member states

• Article 12 of EU Habitats Directive and Article 5 of related EU Birds Directive

• Focus on protection of populations of species of flora and fauna – both within and outside of Natura 2000 sites


How it works, how to use it

• Assessment must show that there is no deliberate capture or killing of specimens and no activities and measures which degrade or destroy breeding sites or resting places

• Exceptions possible for reasons of overriding public interest and if no alternative solution – but population must be maintained at a favourable conservation status

• Must involve authorities that are responsible for implementation of the Habitats and Birds Directives

• No mandatory process of public participation

• Limited experience to date with assessing protected species of Habitats and Birds Directives


Complaintsto EU bodies and internationl conventions


• EC can take EU Member States to the European Cour t of Justice on the basis of complaints, and can apply pressure on governmetns in the interim

• Anyone can submit a complaint, but it is up to the EC whether it pursues them

• In practice, relatively few complaints are actually pursued

Complaint to European Commission


How it works

It is up to the EC to decide whether to take action in response to a formal complaint.

Process where the EC does take action:

• Letter of formal notice

• Reasoned opinion

• European Court Justice


How to use it

• Any individual or organisation can submit a complaint

• Must concern a specific breach of EU law by a Member State – make sure this is clearly stated

• Best in English, though any other EU language is OK

• Follow up the complaint – keep touch with the desk officer and provide further updates


Petition to European Parliament

• Broad scope

• Parliament cannot impose an outcome, but can be useful for drawing attention to an issue

• Simple and relatively easy to use


How it works

• Petitions can be submitted by EU citizens or residents, or companies or organisations with headquarters in the EU

• Petitions Committee assesses whether to take up the issue and then discusses the matter

• Outcomes can vary, e.g. Committee on Petitions can refer it to other European Parliament committees; submit a report to Parliament; as the Commission to provide information, etc.

• Amount of time it takes can vary


How to use it

• Submit your petition by email or mail

• Ensure that the petition is clearly written and includes substantiating arguments

• Inform an MEP from the Committee on Petitions about the petition and encourage them to champion the case


Petition to EU Ombudsman

• Cases of maladministration by EU institutions

• Opinions are not binding, but can be influential

• Simple and accessible, but procedure can in some cases be lengthy



• Can be submitted by EU citizens or residents, or companies and organisations with headquarters in the EU

• Can be submitted by email or mail

• The Ombudsman will examine the complaint and inform you of the outcome of his investigation


Aarhus Compliance Committee

• Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters

• All Carpathian countries except Serbia

• Compliance mechanism designed to improve national compliance with the Convention – individual cases can be used strategically for wider non-compliance and remedy



• Any individual or organisation can submit a complaint to the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee, regardless of whether they are from or based in the country concerned

• Complaints screened by Secretariat

• Forwarded to relevant government for response

• Hearing on the case by the Compliance Committee

• Draft conclusions submitted to complainant and government

• Final decisions can include:– Providing advice and facilitating assistance– Making a recommendation– Issuing declarations of non-compliance– Issuing cautions


Bern Convention Case File

• Bern COnvnetion

• Complaint can be made for any case that has led or might lead to damage to the species protected according to the Convention

• Lacks binding legal remedies, but can be useful in focusing attention on a case and put pressure on authorities to take action

• Case file system is relatively simple and accessible to NGOs and individuals



• Secretariat screens complaints

• Forwards complaint to relevant government for response

• Discussed by Convention Standing Committee

• On-site assessment possible

• Standing Committee can decide to open a file on the case


How to use it

• Individuals and organisations can make a complaint about a Contracting Party’s failure to comply with the Bern Convention

• No requirement regarding form/content

• Actively follow the case after submission


Ramsar Convention - Montreux Record

• Applies only to wetland sites

• “Montreux Record”: wetland sites where an adverse change in ecological character has occurred, is occurring or is likely to occur.

• Lacks binding legal remedies, but can help focus attention on a problem

• Relatively simple and accessible to NGOs and individuals



• Any person or organisation can submit a complaint

• Complaints screened by the Secretariat

• Forwarded to relevant government

• Referred to Scientific & Technical Review Panel for advice

• Secretariat can discuss advice of the Panel with the government and can decide to list the site in the Montreux Record

• Expert mission can be sent to the site to investigate and suggest solutions

• Case can be referred to the Convention’s Standing Committee or full Conference of the Parties.

• Follow the case after it is submitted, e.g. provide regular updates to the Secretariat


World Heritage Convention

• Very limited application to Carpathians

• Lacks binding legal remedies, but can focus attention on a problem and apply pressure

• Complaints can be submitted by individuals or organisations


How it works

• On the basis of a complaint, the World Heritage Committee can inscribe a site on the List of World Heritage in Danube

• This requires the Committee to develop and adopt a programme for corrective measures and monitor the situation

• If a site loses its values, it can be removed from the World Heritage list


Additional materials available

• Handbook of selected administrative and legal tools for addressing conflicts between infrastructure projects and nature conservation across the Carpathians.

• Country reports on selected administrative and legal tools specifically in the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia.

• All available online at: http://www.panda.org/dcpo and

http://www.carpathianproject.eu


Thank you for your attention!


How to use this presentation

• The purpose of this presentation is to assist people giving trainings on administrative and legal instruments for nature conservation in the Carpathians.

• You are welcome to use and adapt this presentation for your purposes.

• The powerpoint slides include relatively detailed speaker’s notes – feel free to use and adapt these to fit your needs.

• You will probably need to cut up the presentation and serve it in bite size pieces, or run a high risk of killing your audience by powerpoint.

• Feel free to add pictures and leave out anything you think is not relevant or appropriate to your audience.

• Consult the accompanying Handbook as well as references and links for further information.

Good luck!


Project support

This presentation and accompanying handbook and country reports have been prepared with financial support from the:

• European Union, through the INTERREG III B CADSES

Neighbourhood Programme and as part of the Carpathian Project (www.carpathianproject.eu)

• MAVA Fondation pour la Protection de la Nature as part of the WWF Protected Areas for a Living Planet Carpathian Ecoregion Project

• WWF Danube-Carpathian Programme


Impressum

The contents of this presentation are free for use for non-commercial purposes.

© 2008, WWF Danube-Carpathian Programmehttp://www.panda.org/dcpo; Email: [email protected]

Author:• Andreas Beckmann, WWF Danube-Carpathian

Programme ([email protected])

Country reports prepared by:

• Milan Janák, Daphne Institute of Applied Ecology

• Vilem Rihacek, Veronica Ecological Institute

• Marta Babicz, WWF‑Poland

• Viktoria Kavran, WWF‑Hungary

addressing threats to nature in the carpathians addressing threats to nature in the carpathians –...

Documents

carpathians legal

project development

infrastructure development

smart development

sustainable development

kind of development

opportunitesthe carpathians

powerful instruments