In the UNECE region, three MEAs have compliance regimes: the g[Aarhus Convention], the Espoo Convention, and the LRTAP Convention. The regimes are structured differently, because non-compliance has different consequences in the different MEAs. Generally, the regimes are non-confrontational and non-judgmental. For the Aarhus and Espoo Conventions, there are opportunities for public participation. The Espoo and LRTAP compliance mechanisms are described following Guideline 16.
Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (Aarhus Convention)
Article 15 of the Aarhus Convention provided that the Meeting of the Parties (MOP) must establish a compliance mechanism that is “non-confrontational, non-judicial and consultative” and that the public must have access to this mechanism. In 2002, the first Meeting of the Parties established a Compliance Committee as the main body for the review of compliance, set out the structure and functions of the Committee, and elaborated the procedures for reviewing compliance with the Convention.
The Committee consists of eight members serving in their personal capacities and elected with due regard to geographical distribution of membership and diversity of experience. NGOs have the right to nominate candidates for the Committee (and the candidates can be from NGOs), which are elected by the MOP. Of the eight Committee members elected at the first MOP in 2002, two were nominated by NGOs.
The Committee’s review of compliance by individual Parties can be triggered by a Party’s submissions with regard to compliance by another Party, a Party’s submission with regard to its own compliance, a referral by the Secretariat, or a communication from a member of the public. In addition, the Committee may examine compliance issues on its own initiative and make recommendations; prepare reports on compliance with or implementation of the provisions of the Convention at the request of the MOP; and monitor, assess, and facilitate the implementation of and compliance with the reporting requirements under the Convention.
The primary role of the Committee is to report and make recommendations to the MOP for it to decide upon and take appropriate action. In certain circumstances, the Committee itself may take certain actions on an interim basis, in consultation or in agreement with the Party concerned. The Committee can consider information from many sources, and the information is considered public unless a Party requests that their information be kept confidential. The identity and personal details of members of the public who submit information can — upon request — be kept confidential.
One important feature of the Aarhus Convention’s compliance mechanism is that it provides for members of the public to make communications to the Committee on cases of alleged non-compliance with the Convention, which the Committee is then required to address. This innovation reflects the broader emphasis of the Aarhus Convention on guaranteeing the rights of the public, not only the rights of Parties vis-à-vis one another; and it is also consistent with human rights mechanisms. [In human rights law, this is a well-established approach to ensure that States respect the basic human rights set out in various treaties.]
Between October 2002 and October 2005, the Committee received 15 communications from the public and one submission from a Party with regard to the compliance by another Party. Five communications were concluded and approved by the Meeting of the Parties. At their second meeting in May 2005, the Parties reviewed the work undertaken by the Committee in the first three years of its operation. On the basis of the Committee’s proposals, the MOP adopted several decisions to facilitate compliance by several individual Parties.
For more information, see http://www.unece.org/env/pp/compliance.htm