The Aarhus Convention – known in long form as the “Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters” was held in Aarhus, Denmark on 25th June 1998 and has since been ratified – into law – by 41 countries, including the U.K [1].
Described by Kofi Annan as “the most ambitious venture in the area of environmental democracy so far taken under the auspices of the United Nations” [2], the convention sought to install and promote “three pillars” amongst member-states:
1) Access to information
2) Public participation in decision making
3) Access to justice in environmental matters
This article is a brief introduction to the purpose of the Aarhus convention. It shall then explore each of the three pillars, illustrating the progress of the U.K Government to implement each within governmental decision making models.
The Purpose of Aarhus
Aarhus was instigated to elaborate upon principle 10 of the Rio Declaration 1992. That Rio declaration also sought to encourage public participation within environmental decision making – in local and national government. The Aarhus convention sought to “go one further” in designing and enforcing the three pillars within the mandatory legislative practices of member states, committing the government to the principles or face legal actions. Legal instruments are considered an unequivocally successful method to instil public participation within the governmental policy making process.
Many – including the UK government itself – acknowledge the critical role played by Aarhus in providing remedy toward a “lack of trust between people and their governments especially where environmental matters were concerned” [2]. It is hoped, therefore, that Aarhus could provide the dialogue between governments and society.
1) Access to Information
“The parties to this convention [recognise] that…improved access to information and public participation in decision-making enhance the quality and the implementation of decisions, contribute to public awareness of environmental issues, give the public the opportunity to express its concerns and enable public authorities to take due account of such concerns” – The Aarhus Convention, page 1 [3].
Member states are required to provide clear and easy access to all environmental information relevant to public interests to ensure accountability and transparency. Aarhus calls upon member states to acknowledge the value of providing public access to information in strengthening the quality and implementation of decisions.
In the United Kingdom, such powers are ensconced within regulation 03/4/EC granting public access to information held by all public bodies – either via electronic means or upon request. The UK has, on this element, won support from Friends of the Earth for promoting such efforts in an efficient and timely manner – as well as public access to wide ranging information via electronic databases and websites. However, further progress could also be made; Yemen, for example, has won wide praise for the creation of “Aarhus centres” – information points set up across the country to facilitate information sharing, disseminate public notices and provide advice to citizens. This is something the U.K acknowledges could be done in the future to enhance public access to governmental information.
2) Public Participation in Decision Making
“The parties to this convention…consider that…citizens must…be entitled to participate in decision making” and “public needs to be aware of the procedures for participation in environmental decision-making” – Aarhus convention, page 1[3].
Timely and early access to information is a mandatory objective within the Aarhus convention. Governments must allow scope for the public – or NGOs – to provide submissions for consideration. In doing so, governments must ensure the public are given early notice of intentions and to provide all relevant information for the public to access before being informed of the means and methods for providing contributions.
Despite being a signatory, the UK has shown only lukewarm motivation and enthusiasm in adopting this objective. In a DEFRA letter of 15th October 2010 – seeking public input into an Aarhus progress report – consultees were offered the opportunity to “comment” upon the efforts undertaken to date by the UK. It is worth noting that whilst the letter requests comment, it provides no clear indication that such feedback would influence the report. The letter explicitly states no guarantee to protect the confidentiality of participants; a clear violation of the values and ambitions of the Aarhus convention and could be a deterrence to those wishing to contribute (see [4]).
3) Access to Environmental Justice
“The parties to this convention…consider that citizens…must have access to justice in environmental matters, and acknowledging in this regard that citizens may need assistance in order to exercise their rights” – Aarhus convention, page 1[3].
It is a mandatory requirement that member states provide legislative scope for the public to raise court actions when affected, or endangered, by environmental decisions. Member states must ensure – as illustrated previously – that information on how to bring about such actions are visibly available to members of the public.
Such actions demand financial commitments from those raising judicial actions and this has been acknowledged as the main deterrent for citizens in bringing forward valid complaints. To overcome this barrier, The Aarhus convention demands that member states enable such procedures to be free of charge for users, granting unparalleled opportunity to those seeking to raise such actions [3].
In the 2010 meeting of delegates, in Moldova, the UK was lambasted on its failure to implement free court proceedings for such situations. The UK has argued that current provisions in offering legal-aid to low income individuals should suffice to meet this demand. However at Moldova, the UK was forced to concede that current provisions were not adequate and was granted 3 years to remedy this situation and report back to the U.N [5].
Conclusion
This brief article has presented – indeed, simplified – the main aims of the Aarhus convention. The convention in itself was extraordinary in demanding that participation (access to information, participation in decision making and, finally, access to environmental justice) be embedded within legislature among member states. Whilst some states continue to translate Aarhus as a political – as opposed to legal – consideration, those governments are quickly held to account. Aarhus is unique in giving power to the public whilst holding governments to account in a wholly new transparent manner and provides both protection for the individual as well as the environment.
[1] http://www.inece.org/conference/7/vol1/22_Kremlis.pdf (accessed September 2011)
[2] http://www.parliament.uk/documents/post/postpn256.pdf (accessed September 2011)
[3] http://live.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/pp/documents/cep43e.pdf (accessed September 2011)
[4] http://archive.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/aarhus/101015-aarhus-letter.pdf (accessed September 2011)
[5] http://www.iisd.ca/ymb/aarhus/mop4 (accessed September 2011)
