Saturday 29 February 2020

The EU once again fails to comply with International Law


The European Union have once again stonewalled attempts by the UN Aarhus Convention Committee (UNECE) to comply with the Aarhus Convention which protects citizens rights to protect their environment, and is a part of International Law, just like the Geneva Convention on Torture or the 1951 Refugee Convention. The Convention enshrines in law the rights of citizens to public participation, public access to information and access to justice in environmental matters. In 2017, it was found that the EU denied these rights to citizens when Member States such as Ireland prepared their Renewable Action Plans in 2010 (NREAPs), plans which had a serious impact on the environment. Since Member States are now preparing new Renewable Action Plans (NECPs), the Committee has switched it's focus on to them to ensure compliance. Essentially, the UN Committee is acting as a watchdog for the EU, something which the EU is not used to having around.


Regarding the evaluation by the Party concerned of member States’ 2010 NREAPs,
the Committee already made clear in its report on decision V/9g to the sixth session of the
Meeting of the Parties that the information provided by the Party concerned in that
intersessional period did not satisfy the requirements of the last sentence of paragraph 3 of
decision V/9g.

The Committee stressed the need for the Party concerned to address these points. The Party concerned has to date failed to do so. The Committee reiterates its serious concern that, despite having been explicitly invited to do so in the Committee’s first progress review, the Party concerned in its second progress report has still not yet replied to the questions put to it in the Committee’s second progress review on decision V/9g in the last intersessional period.

The Committee regrets the lack of engagement by the Party concerned on this issue.

However, since a proper regulatory framework or clear instructions for implementing
article 7 with respect to the NREAPs was never, and upon the NECPs’ supersession of the
NECPs, now never will be, put in place by the Party concerned, there will remain no proper
framework or clear instructions for any public participation on the NREAPs to be evaluated
against. The Committee thus considers it would be futile for the Committee to spend further
time on reviewing the manner in the Party concerned evaluates NREAPs and more expedient
to instead focus its review on the evaluation of the Party concerned of the member States’
post-2020 NECPs. The Committee underlines that it expects considerably better engagement
from the Party concerned moving forward than that it has provided with respect to the
evaluation of member States’ 2010 NREAPs.

The Committee reiterates its serious concern that, despite having been explicitly invited to do so in the Committee’s first progress review, the Party concerned in its second progress report has still not yet replied to the questions put to it in the Committee’s second progress review on decision V/9g in the last intersessional period. The Committee regrets the lack of engagement by the Party concerned on this issue.

However, since a proper regulatory framework or clear instructions for implementing article 7 with respect to the NREAPs was never, and upon the NECPs’ supersession of the NECPs, now never will be, put in place by the Party concerned, there will remain no proper framework or clear instructions for any public participation on the NREAPs to be evaluated against. The Committee thus considers it would be futile for the Committee to spend further time on reviewing the manner in the Party concerned evaluates NREAPs and more expedient to instead focus its review on the evaluation of the Party concerned of the member States’ post-2020 NECPs. The Committee underlines that it expects considerably better engagement from the Party concerned moving forward that it has provided with respect to the evaluation of member States’ 2010 NREAPs

Essentially when the European Union wants to implement it's plan, it will do it even when its in defiance of International Law. And still we in Ireland wonder why the UK would ever want to leave such an institution. 

Thanks to Pat Swords for the update and all his hard work in this case.