The Aarhus Convention Reporting Mechanism

National Implementation Reports 2011Experience and lessons learned

Aphrodite Smagadi, Aarhus Convention secretariataphrodite.smagadi@unece.org

Reporting cycles

Two reporting cycles since establishment of reporting mechanism (Decision I/8)

First cycle (2005): 26 reports(30 Parties) = 87%

Second cycle (2008): 35 reports(41 Parties) = 85%

Third cycle (2011) – 44 Parties

Experience

Valuable information provided

Positive developments in legislative frameworks and practical implementation

Challenges to implementation identified

Practical challenges

Content – not always adequately addressed

Format and process

Timing and resources

Content: challenge

Some reports did not provide adequate answers to the questions

Examples: Parties provided lists of instruments without

clarifying how they transposed the provisions of the Convention into national law

Requested information was provided in answer to different question

Content: recommendation

Address all questionsDo not forget GMO amendmentPPIF reporting format may be used as pilot

Consult guidance document prepared by the Compliance Committee

Format: challenges

Reports did not follow reporting format

Lack of clear structure

Secretariat had to re-format (agreed on a format with documents division)

Format: recommendations

First time? Follow the structure of 2008 reports

Second or third time? Use the previous report and work with track

changes to Enable recording of changes Facilitate the translation

If previous report not published as official UN document, use submitted version + track changes

Process: challenge

Public participation process was criticized as not having been performed in an adequate manner

Process: recommendations

Start as early as possibleREMEMBER: report must be submitted by

second week of December 2010Two public consultations:

First: on the content of the report, before the first draft

Second: for comments, to incorporate in a subsequent draft

Timing: challenge

Reports were submitted after the deadline (some after MOP-3)Translation delaysRefusal of UN conference services to

translate and process as UN official documents

Timing: recommendation

Submit the reports by the set deadline:

8 December 2010

Suggested timeline

Consultation on the content

1 month(July – August)

First draft of the NIR 1 month(August – September)

Consultation on first draft 1-2 months(September – early November)

Final report preparation (including translation, if necessary)

1 month(early November – 8 December)

Submission

(180 days before MOP-4) 8 December 2010

2011 Reporting cycle

Despite challenges, Parties decided at their third meeting (June 2008) to continue current reporting practice until MOP-4 (June 2011)

New electronic database in Aarhus Clearinghouse aims to make information easily accessible & allow for online submission of reports: http://apps.unece.org/ehlm/pp/NIR/index.asp

Compliance Committee GuidanceProcess

Enable broad, effective participation, as early as possible

Inter- and intra-agency consultations (identify in advance)

Public/stakeholder consultations (multi-stakeholder working groups)

Publicly available drafts In the national language

Compliance Committee GuidanceContent

New information

Information on practical implementation

Common areas of difficulties

CC Guidance: new information

Significant amendments in the laws, regulations, etc.

Official interpretation of the lawsGuidance to the public on how to

exercise their lawsNew practical measures/arrangements

with public authoritiesTrack-changes (consolidated report)

CC Guidance: practical implementation info

Challenge: insufficient informationProvide information on

practical measures institutional arrangementsworking groupsany budgetary allocationcapacity building (training)

CC Guidance: content checklist

Be specific

Follow the non-prescriptive list for possible consideration in the preparation of the NIRs (annex to the CC guidance for reporting)