ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY INTEGRATION (EPI)
John Hontelez (EEB) made presentation of the EPI (see Annex 2).
It was suggested to have the EPI as a theme for the NGO session with Ministers in Kiev similar to the session organised at the second day of the Ministerial Conference in Aarhus. Decision to be made during the third day.
Workshops' facilitators presented the set of morning workshops.
2.2.1 Energy (continued from the day 1)
2.2.2 Transport, Environment and Health
Facilitators: Frazer Goodwin of T&E and Gaudenz Silberschmidt, ISDE, Environment and Health IG Co-ordinator.
A first discussion focused on the main health impact of transport dividing them into primary direct effects (e.g. accidents, etc.); mediated direct effects (air pollution, noise, climate change, toxic waste, stress etc.) and more structural indirect effects (e.g. lack of physical exercise due to car dominated structure, economic system favouring more and more freight transport, lack of demand side management due to prevailing economic views, etc.)
Secondly participants tried to describe the necessary approaches to address these problems. Up to now the most common approach used where technological fixes. The group felt that this is insufficient and needs to be complemented by behaviour changes, environment and health policy integration, modal shift, regulation and its enforcement, E&H oriented investments, demand side management, fiscal policy changes, planning, social policy and training / capacity building.
In a further step the WHO / UN-ECE draft report recommending the negotiation of a Framework Convention on transport, environment and health was presented. The group examined whether the above approaches are covered in the possible elements of the framework convention as described in the draft report and made several suggestions for improvements, which Gaudenz Silberschmidt will forward to WHO and UN/ECE. Further comments on the draft report can be sent until 15 October. It was strongly felt that NGOs should fully support the recommendation of a framework convention. A decision on whether to open negotiation will be taken at a high level meeting in mid-April 2001. We have to involve much more NGOs to organise the lobbying for this framework convention at the national level.
The Issue group should be reactivated. T&E will provide the core facilitation and membership in collaboration with Gaudenz Silberschmidt of ISDE. The meeting decided to mandate Frazer Goodwin and Gaudenz Silberschmidt to propose a co-ordination structure. T&E membership covers all major Western and several CEE NGOs working on transport and environment. Those smaller groups in the West (such as those organised in Initiative Transport et Environment ITE). We need outreach to involve more groups from CEE and NIS in the work towards a Framework Convention. We decided to use the contacts of Eco-Forum, the former Issue group active before Aarhus, ANPED, ECO-Accord and NGO Secretariat on Acid Rain to find these contacts.
The possible NGO negotiation team should be composed using the following criteria:
- Regional balance;
- Transport, environment and health expertise;
- Legal expertise;
- Team of about 4 people.
Facilitators: Victoria Elias, ECO-Accord, ECO-Forum CB Chair and Chris Church, ANPED, Local Issues Group Co-ordinator
Fifty-three people from 25 countries participated in the workshop.
In the beginning the general introduction to the Rio+10 global process, main actors, NGO networks, links to the "Environment for Europe" process and the Rio+10 document developed by the UN/ECE CEP secretariat for the CEP 7th session has been made. Chris Church made a special presentation on the way towards Earth Summit 2002 (see Annex 3).
Participants have been informed on the inputs to the process made by UN CSD, UN ECE, UN Asian and Pacific Regional Commission, UN CSD NGO Steering Committee, UNED Forum, NGO "Rio+8" Forum, European Rio+10 Partnership (Business, Trade Unions, etc.), Earth Council, ANPED and some others.
It was discussed how different regions and actors are going to contribute to the global process. Participants mentioned that NGOs should actively participate in the preparations at all levels.
The following "expected" inputs were mentioned:
At global level:
At regional levels:
Discussing the possible NGO input to the preparation to Rio+10 participants highlighted the necessity to avoid the overlap of Rio+10 and EfE processes, resources allocation, the necessity to cover the following priorities:
Other important issues for the global preparatory process are:
Participants have also highlighted the necessity to support the earth Charter process and to call for the Earth Charter adoption at the Rio+10 Forum.
The workshop suggestions to the Kiev declaration have been elaborated.
Facilitator: Iza Kruszewska, ANPED, SPAC IG Co-ordinator
Fourteen people from 8 countries - evenly balanced between Western Europe, CEE and NIS - participated in this workshop.
The concerns of participants were very diverse. Western Europeans identified Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs), hormone disrupters and reproductive health, as well as the need to phase out toxic, persistent and bio-accumulative substances, using right to know tools, such as Pollutant Release and Transfer Registers (PRTRs). The concerns of NGOs from NIS focused on pollution from military operations, the need to eliminate chemical weapons and obsolete pesticides, the transfer of waste incineration technologies to NIS and the inability to use foreign loans to buy the truly cleaner technologies. Some NIS groups are following the UNEP POPs process. In CEE, EU accession and thus EU chemicals policy, as well as the transfer of hazardous waste incineration are key campaign themes. The consequences of the war in Yugoslavia - radiation from missiles fuelled by depleted uranium and chemical pollution from destroyed factories - are the focus of NGO activities there.
Much of the work of toxics activists around the world is currently centred on the negotiations of a UNEP Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs). Its aim is to phase out the production and use of 12 POPs: 9 pesticides, (including DDT, heptachlor, dieldrin and toxaphene) PCBs, dioxins and furans. Dioxins and furans are groups of chemicals that are produced during incineration processes, when burning substances containing chlorine. Dioxins are known hormone disrupters, which have been shown to behave like oestrogens. The work of NGOs in the UNEP POPs process is being co-ordinated by the International Platform for Elimination of POPs (IPEN).
In order to bring together the diverse interests of the workshop participants, we focused on the basic principles that could be applied to any of our work. As a basis for this discussion, we started with the five principles identified by Friends of the Earth:
Some of these principles were further elaborated; others were added, including:
Since IPEN is co-ordinating global NGO work on POPs and other NGOs, such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth are working on toxics, a separate ECO-Forum Issue Group on Toxics might duplicate the work already being done.
2.3.1 Participation in Decision-Making, and Access to Justice
This issue discussion was co-chaired by Mary Taylor (FoE-UK, PPCC co-ordinator) and Svitlana Kravchenko (EcoPravo-Lviv, Ukraine, PPCC project manager).
They made presentations of the Aarhus Convention process (see Annex 4 - Svitlana Kravchenko's presentation), specifically focusing on some issues: SEA and PRTR in particular (Mary Taylor).
It has been also discussed that one of the issue groups of the ECO-Forum Public Participation IG) is working on the Aarhus Convention, which was signed in 1998 at the fourth “Environment for Europe” Ministerial meeting. The negotiations themselves and the follow-up to the Convention are remarkable for their level of NGO involvement, with NGOs playing a highly pro-active and influential role in all official processes and meetings. The ECO-Forum also has a representative on the Advisory Board to the Convention, and a place on the Bureau, a less formal kind of “Friends of the Chair” group. And now the Secretariat to the Convention is the former co-ordinator of the ECO-Forum NGO coalition, Jeremy Wates.
The convention does not set environmental standards itself, but seeks to improve environmental protection by setting in place rights of public participation. There are many challenges ahead at the national, local and international levels as we press for adoption and implementation of the rights. For instance, Aarhus principles could and should apply to multi-lateral agencies such as the EBRD or even WTO.
In response to specific proposals from NGOs several official Task Forces have been established to work on further development of the Convention: Access to Justice, Pollutant Release and Transfer Registers and Use of Electronic Information and Tools. It is hoped that the PRTR work will lead to a legally binding instrument such as a protocol, requiring the cataloguing of pollutant releases from a variety of industries and other sources. We have also worked towards subjecting decisions on releases of GMOs (genetically modified organisms) to public participation, and will be active in development of a protocol on Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA).
A plain language booklet, entitled “What is the Aarhus Convention? Citizens’ environmental rights under the Aarhus Convention” is now available in English, Ukrainian and Russian, in paper and on the web (English version currently).
This campaign is co-ordinated by a committee composed of NGO representatives from a wide geographic area: the European Environmental Bureau (John Hontelez), Friends of the Earth Europe (currently vacant), ECO-Accord (Russia, Olga Ponizova), Borrowed Nature (Bulgaria, Kliment Mindjov), MAMA-86 (Ukraine, Anna Golubovska-Onosimova), TERRA Environmental Policy Centre (Spain, Fe Sanchis Moreno), Shatil (Israel, Ishai Menuchin), and the Environmental Law Institute (USA, Susan Casey-Lefkowitz). A co-ordinator (Mary Taylor) and project manager (Svitlana Kravchenko) are based in the UK and Ukraine respectively.
In course of the open discussion participants supported the idea that ECO-Forum should lobby for developing and signing the SEA Protocol in Kiev.
The second agenda item discussion was focused on the issues of environmental liability. John Hontelez (EEB) who also made a presentation on the liability (see Annex 5) chaired it.
It was no broad discussion, but the idea to push for using the Lugano Convention of the Council of Europe (1993, signed by 9 Western European countries, but not ratified yet) as a basis for the liability Protocol development was generally supported.
2.4.1 Transport (continued from the morning)
2.4.2 Biodiversity
Facilitator: Oleg Tsaruk, Ecolog/Biostan, BIG Co-ordinator
In work of the BIG workshop took part 19 participants out of 43 by preliminary subscription. Many of those who didn't attend explained that they were not able to come because of participation in other workshops.
The main topics of the BIG meeting were:
a) Report on the last events relate to the PEBLDS implementation (Riga-2000: Intergovernmental Conference "Biodiversity in Europe" and PEBLDS Council Meeting) - (Anton Chtchoukine);
b) BIG preparation to Kiev-2003 (Alexei Andreev) and Rio+10 (Oleg Tsaruk);
c) Institutional development of BIG.
The main results of the discussions on the items a) and b) are reflected at the BIG resolution attached. The special attention was paid to the problems of public awareness raising on the implementation of international environmental agreements, including those of global and Pan-European level; control and monitoring of the status of natural protected areas, problems of influence of international credit and loan policy o biodiversity conservation.
On the item c) of the agenda participants agreed that previous structure (BIG division by the geographical principles (West Europe, CEE, NIS) does not work properly and decided to use for future thematic group division. As one of the first steps on this way it was adopted decision to establish three Working Groups:
Group reconfirmed Anton Chtchoukine as the EcoForum/BIG representative to PEBLDS Council.
By the request of Oleg Tsaruk, the BIG co-ordinator from June 1998, who became in August 1999 a member of the Global Co-ordinating Committee of RIOD (the International NGO Network on Desertification) the Biodiversity Issue Group agreed to make a rotation of co-ordinators. Piotr Gorbunenko of Biotica, Moldova (in the last years - resource person) will play a role of the BIG co-ordinator, while Oleg Tsaruk becomes a resource person.
The BIG adopted its resolution - see Annex 7.
2.4.3 Sustainable Production and Consumption (SPAC) Patterns
Facilitator: Iza Kruszewska, ANPED, SPAC IG Co-ordinator
This was a small workshop with participants expressing very diverse concerns that included over-arching issues, such as the transfer of western consumption patterns, the impact of advertising, the transfer of hazardous technologies west to east, ethical issues around production and consumption, including poverty and equity, and environmental policy integration. Some participants brought more specific concerns to the workshop, such as food safety and elimination of obsolete pesticides, as well as new forms of electromagnetic pollution, but it was felt that they were addressed or could be covered in other workshops.
The workshop discussed whether the ECO-Forum SPAC Issue Group should remain, whether it needs to be re-structured or whether it should be abolished altogether. There was a lot of support for keeping the SPAC IG to cover over-arching issues, especially in light of the support given by the ECO-Forum plenary for Environmental Policy Integration as a central theme for Kiev 2003. It was felt that no other IG covers issues of Consumption i.e. the need for Sufficiency over the current industrial paradigm of eco-efficiency.
The workshop agreed to focus on hazardous technology transfer, as this is particularly pertinent to this pan-European process. Three hazardous technologies were identified that should be highlighted during the Ministerial conference: waste incineration, nuclear and genetic engineering (specifically, ag-biotech). The group developed this idea, by examining how we could use hazardous technologies (haz tech) transfer as the central issue for an NGO session during the official Ministerial Conference in Kiev 2003. It was proposed that we collect case studies of each type of haz tech transfer on the one hand, to highlight the problem with specific examples; on the other hand, the NGO session could also put the spotlight on the alternatives: waste minimisation/clean production, renewable energy and organic agriculture. To drive home our point, we would also undertake some research into where investments were being made to compare how much money was going into haz technologies, as opposed their more sustainable alternatives. The proposal of this Issue Group to focus the NGO session during the Ministerial Conference (assuming that an NGO session is, in principle, agreed to) on hazardous technology transfer was presented to the ECO-Forum plenary, as a concrete outcome of this workshop.
2.4.4 Environmental Actions Programme for CEE and Almaty High Level Consultation on the NIS Problems
Facilitator: Olga Ponizova, ECO-Accord, Russia, EAP IG Co-ordinator
The main focus was made on the preparation to the high Level NIS Consultation in Almaty, Kazakhstan (16-17 October 2000). Participants have been informed on the latest developments of the official preparatory process, the Almaty agenda, findings of the regional NIS NGO workshops (organised by the EAP IG and co-ordinated by ECO-Accord), the NGO position paper for Almaty.
Participants have discussed the NGO input to the Almaty process and the position paper noted the comments from the workshops.
The EAP IG plans to continue actively working in the NIS as well as in the CEE towards the Kiev Ministerial Conference. Some strategic options and working plans have also been discussed.
The participants suggested that ECO-Forum should lobby for the inclusion of the technical assistance issues to the Kiev ministerial agenda.
Some specific suggestions to the ECO-Forum declaration have also been formulated.
The EAP IG will continue working towards Kiev-2003.
Environmental Education (EE) is becoming very important for many Eastern participants of the EcoForum, as education approach is entire need of the citizen in the countries with economies in transition.
The Initiative Group for the EE IG establishment was started by Chris Church after all other groups practically finished their work. This open possibility for a wide overlook of the problem issues and clarification that EE mainly understood as general and certain training in decision making is needed.
More than 30 participants supported starting new issue group “EE” as part of participation in development of a Charter on EE, as well as basic way for building capacity of the ECO-Forum Coalition.
ECO-Forum practice shows that practically all kinds of activities, campaigns and projects depend on the skills and training in problem solving. It was stressed that EE and training are the most efficient ways to direct citizen activity after the “awareness raising”. Public Participation Issue Group expressed the same concern that special training is needed to work properly with information. Representatives of the other issue groups made similar suggestions.
Participants highlighted that EE converts “way” to Kiev into “road”.
As the practical step toward EE for the ECO-Forum it was proposed to organise EE training course in summer 2001 in Russia done by EcopolisPress (Moscow) in Cupertino with other NGOs. Special attention was given to “Health and Environment” Issue in respect of the activities at personal, family and group levels, that helps to make policy flexible, expands mobility and efficiently in reducing health and nature risk in the NIS situation in particular.
“EE for Action” summer school for ECO-Forum leaders was suggested and supported by participants. The final title for proposed seminar was “Modern Educational Technology in Environmental Problem Solving”. The core of the event: to build ECO-Forum capacity in management of the complex and actual issues: health, transport, environment, biodiversity, public participation.
Dmitri Kavtaradze (EcopolisPress) was elected the co-ordinator of the EE Issue Group.
Reporting back from workshops session took place in the evening.
The alternative issue for the NGO session with Ministers - Hazardous Technologies Transfer - was suggested.
The decision is to be taken at the 3rd day in plenary.