globannd.gif (2906 bytes)

BackHome

Development of the format for the description of the case studies of public participation in a transboundary EIA

 

The second meeting of the Parties to the Convention (Sofia, 26-27 February 2001) welcomed the work carried out by the Russian Federation with financial support of Italy in developing first version of the guidance. This meeting recommended the Parties to develop this guidance further, inter alia on the basis of case studies, and to put forward proposals for consideration at the third meeting of Parties. The first step in collecting and analysis of case studies was the development of the format for the description of these case studies. A first version of a format was developed by the Russian Federation with assistance of the United Kingdom and twice (in February and June 2002) was sent by the Secretariat of the Convention to the focal points of the Convention for comments. In addition, draft of the format was presented for comments in the meetings of the Ad-hoc Working Group on SEA Protocol in Warsaw (February 2002) and in Oslo (May 2002). Second version of a format was developed according to recommendations of the meeting of the UNECE Task Force on public participation in environmental impact assessment in a transboundary context (the UNECE PP-EIA Task Force) in Moscow (25-27 September 2003).

 

A first version of a format  of description of the case studies

dealing with public participation in a transboundary EIA

 

 

1. Description of the project

 

1.1. Which country was:

1.1.1.The Party of Origin and

1.1.2.The Affected Party / Parties

1.2.Which project (which kind of proposed  activity) was under consideration

1.3.Which stage of the project (e.g. feasibility study,…) was under consideration?

 1.4.Who was the proponent of the proposed  activity?

1.5. Are the Concerned Parties  Parties to the Convention?:

1.5.1.The Party of Origin - ?

1.5.2. The Affected Party - ?

1.6. Other than the Convention is there any other agreement between the Concerned Parties for dealing with a transboundary EIA (e.g. bi-lateral or multi-lateral agreements)?

If “Yes”, were questions of public participation included in this agreement? Which ones (please, identify)?

2. Notification of public (including NGOs) about the proposed activity

A.  In Party of Origin

2.1.At what stage in the EIA procedure was the public of the Party of Origin informed about the proposed activity and about the possibility to take part in the EIA procedure?

2.2.Which methods were used to notify the  public and interested parties of the Party of Origin ?

2.2.1.Newspapers (which ones – local, regional, national?)

2.2.2. TV (which ones – local, regional,  national?)

2.2.3.Radio (which ones – local, regional,  national?)

2.2.4.Notification of NGOs by post (which ones – local, regional, national?).

            2.2.5.Web-site in Internet?

2.2.6.Organizing meetings of the public with:

2.2.6.1. Competent authorities?

2.2.6.2. Proponent of activity?

2.2.7.Notification of the stakeholders of the areas likely to be affected by post or by other

way?

2.2.8.Other methods (please, identify)?

2.3.Had the public in the Party of Origin access to the full EIA documentation?

If “Yes”, how it was organised (please, identify)

 

2.4. How many sets  (booklets) of EIA information (summary of EIA documentation) were sent to representatives of public and stakeholders in the Party of Origin?

 

 

B.  In Affected Party

 

2.5.At what stage in the EIA procedure was the public of the Affected Party informed about the proposed activity and about the possibility to take part in the EIA procedure?

2.6.Who informed public of the Affected Party about a transboundary EIA and about possibility to take part in this procedure (please, identify)?

2.7.Which methods were used to notify the  public of the Affected Party ?

2.7.1.Through notification of the authorities of the Affected Party?

2.7.2.Direct notification of the public of the Affected Party (methods?)

            2.7.3.Other methods  (please, identify)?

2.8. Was a translation of the EIA documentation and information into the language of the Affected Party necessary? 

If “Yes”” what was translated:

            2.8.1. Full EIA documentation,

            2.8.2. Summary of the EIA documentation,

            2.8.3. Other EIA information (please, identify)

2.9. Who made the translation and covered the cost of the translation of EIA documentation (information) for public of the Affected Party:

2.9.1.Competent authorities of the Party of  Origin,

2.9.2.Competent authorities of the Affected Party,

2.9.3.Proponent of proposed activity,

2.9.4.Others  (please, identify).

 2.10.Had the public in the Affected Party access to the full EIA documentation?

If “Yes”, how it was organised (please, identify)

2.11. How many sets  (booklets) of EIA information (summary of EIA documentation) were sent to representatives of public and stakeholders in the Affected Party ?

 

2.12.Were there requests for:

2.12.1 Additional information, or

2.12.2.Additional numbers of copies of EIA documentation (booklets with information)

from the public of the Affected Party?

 

If “Yes”, how many additional copies (and which additional information) were sent to the public of the Affected Party?

 

            3. Public participation

3.1.Which methods were used for receiving the views on the proposed activity from members of the public in the Party of Origin?

3.1.1. Answers to Questionnaire?

3.1.2. Written comments from the public?

3.1.3. Reports of consultations with the public?

3.1.4. Reports of public hearings?

3.1.5. Others (please, identify)?

 

3.2.Which methods were used for receiving the views on the proposed activity from members of the public in the Affected Party?

3.2.1. Answers on Questionnaire?

3.2.2. Written comments from the  public?

3.2.3. Reports of consultations with the public?

3.2.4. Reports of public hearings?

3.2.5. Others (please, identify)?

 

3.3.How many answers (comments, recommendations) were received from public and stakeholders in:

3.3.1. The Party of Origin?

3.3.2. The Affected Party?

 

3.4.Were the answers (comments) of the public of the Affected Party received by the Party of Origin from:

3.4.1. Competent authority of the Affected Party?

3.4.2. Public of the Affected Party directly?

3.4.3. Competent authority and public of the Affected Party?

3.4.4. Others (please, identify)?

 

3.5.What were the main views expressed by the public in:

3.5.1. The Party of Origin, and 

3.5.2. The Affected Party

about the proposed activity?

Please specify and explain any reservations expressed or any significant differences between these views.  How were these reservations resolved? 

4. Time limits

4.1. Which time limit was established by the Party of Origin for receiving the comments from public:

            4.1.1. Of the Party of Origin?

            4.1.2. Of the Affected Party?

 

4.2. Who established the time limit for receiving the comments from the public of the Affected Party?

 

4.3 Did the time limit present any difficulty for either Party?

 

5. Cost of public participation in a transboundary EIA

5.1. Please, give, if it is possible, any financial assessments of the cost of public participation in a transboundary EIA in:

5.1.1. The Party of Origin

5.1.2. The Affected Party

5.2. Can you please provide a breakdown of the costs to show how they were distributed in the Party of Origin and in the Affected Party between:

5.2.1. Copying the EIA documentation (information) in its original languages

5.2.2. Translation

5.2.3. Public meetings

5.2.4. Advertising

5.2.5. Other purposes (please, identify)?

5.3. Who was responsible for meeting this cost?

 

6. Output of public participation in a transboundary EIA and a final decision on proposed activity

 

6.1. Was the public in the Party of Origin informed of the final decision about the proposed activity, and were views expressed by members of the public of the Party of Origin taken into account in reaching the decision?  Did the decision state how those views were taken into account?

 

If "Yes", who informed public of Party of Origin about this:

            6.1.1.Competent authorities of Party of Origin?

6.1.2.Proponent of proposed activity?

6.1.3.Others (please, identify)

 

6.2. Was the public in the Affected Party informed of the final decision about the proposed activity, and were views expressed by members of the public in the Affected Party taken into account in reaching the decision?  Did the decision state how those views were taken into account?

 

If "Yes", who informed public of Affected Party about this:

                        6.2.1.Competent authorities of Party of Origin?

                        6.2.2.Competent authorities of Affected Party?

6.2.3.Proponent of proposed activity?

6.2.4.Others (please, identify)

 

7.Description of any difficulties (technical or practical) encountered by the actors in transboundary EIA while providing public information or organising public participation in:

7.1.The Party of Origin

7.2.The Affected Party 

8. Any other remarks?

*   *   *

 

 

A second (final) version of a format  of description of the case studies

dealing with public participation in a transboundary EIA

 

No of Case Study

1.Information about the project (title, activity; stage of EIA procedure):

2.1Party of origin (PO): was PO a Party of the Convention during the EIA procedure (YES/NO):

2.2.Affected Party (AP): was AP a Party of the Convention during the EIA procedure(YES/NO):

3.Special agreement between Parties about transboundary EIA and/or Joint body:

4.Proponent (title (if possible); public/private):  

5. Notification of public of PO – according to national legislation  (Yes/No):

6. Notification of public of AP:

       6.1.In what stage:

       6.2.Who informed public:

       6.3.Methods used for public notification:

       6.4.Number of sets of EIA information transmitted to public of AP:

7.Translation of EIA documentation for public of AP ( Yes/No):

        7.1.All EIA documentation / summary:

        7.2.Translation was undertaken by:

        7.3.Payment was covered by:

8.Time limits established for receiving comments or objections(c/o) from public:

9.Collecting the comments or objections(c/o) of  public of AP:

      9.1.Who collected  c/o:

       9.2.Methods used for collecting c/o:

      9.3.Number of received c/o of public of AP:

10.Cost of public participation (total sum; who cover this cost):

11.Transmission of c/o of public of AP to the competent authority (CA) of PO:

       11.1.Who sent c/o of  public of AP to the CA of PO:  

       11.2.Who made translation of these c/o:

       11.3.Did CA of AP receive c/o of  public of AP which were sent to the CA of  PO:

12.Taking into account in final decision outcome of EIA, including public comments or objections on the proposed activity and public comments on EIA documentation:  

13.Difficulties encountered:

14.Case study was presented by: