Convention
on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary
Context
Espoo, Finland, 25 February 1991
PARTICIPANTS - see map
| Participant |
Signature,
Succession to signature (d) |
Ratification,
Acceptance (A), Approval (AA), Accession
(a) |
| Albania |
26 Feb 1991 |
4 Oct 1991 |
| Armenia |
|
21
Feb 1997 a |
| Austria |
26
Feb 1991 |
27
Jul 1994 |
| Azerbaijan |
|
25
Mar 1999 a |
| Belarus |
26
Feb 1991 |
10 November 2005 A |
| Belgium |
26
Feb 1991 |
2
Jul 1999 |
| Bulgaria |
26
Feb 1991 |
12
May 1995 |
| Canada |
26
Feb 1991 |
13
May 1998 |
| Croatia |
|
8
Jul 1996 a |
| Cyprus |
|
20
Jul 2000 a |
| Czech
Republic 1 |
30
Sep 1993 d |
26
Feb 2001 |
| Denmark2 |
26
Feb 1991 |
14
Mar 1997 AA |
| Estonia |
|
25
Apr 2001 a |
| European
Community |
26
Feb 1991 |
24
Jun 1997 AA |
| Finland |
26
Feb 1991 |
10
Aug 1995 A |
| France3 |
26
Feb 1991 |
15
Jun 2001 AA |
| Germany |
26
Feb 1991 |
8
Aug 2002 |
| Greece |
26
Feb 1991 |
24
Feb 1998 |
| Hungary |
26
Feb 1991 |
11
Jul 1997 |
| Iceland |
26
Feb 1991 |
|
| Ireland |
27
Feb 1991 |
25
Jul 2002 |
| Italy |
26
Feb 1991 |
19
Jan 1995 |
| Kazakhstan |
|
11
Jan 2001 a |
| Kyrgyzstan |
|
1
May 2001 a |
| Latvia |
|
31
Aug 1998 a |
| Liechtenstein |
|
9
Jul 1998 a |
| Lithuania |
|
11
Jan 2001 a |
| Luxembourg |
26
Feb 1991 |
29
Aug 1995 |
| Moldova |
|
4 Jan 1994 a |
| Netherlands4 |
25
Feb 1991 |
28
Feb 1995 A |
| Norway |
25
Feb 1991 |
23
Jun 1993 |
| Poland |
26
Feb 1991 |
12
Jun 1997 |
| Portugal |
26
Feb 1991 |
6
Apr 2000 |
| Romania |
26
Feb 1991 |
29
Mar 2001 |
| Russian
Federation |
6
Jun 1991 |
|
| Serbia |
|
18 December 2007 a |
| Slovakia1 |
28
May 1993 d |
19
Nov 1999 |
| Slovenia |
|
5
Aug 1998 a |
| Spain |
26
Feb 1991 |
10
Sep 1992 |
| Sweden |
26
Feb 1991 |
24
Jan 1992 |
| Switzerland |
|
16
Sep 1996 a |
| The
Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia |
|
31
Aug 1999 a |
| Ukraine |
26
Feb 1991 |
20
Jul 1999 |
| United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland5 |
26
Feb 1991 |
10
Oct 1997 |
| United
States of America |
26
Feb 1991 |
|
DECLARATIONS
Declarations
and Reservations
(Unless
otherwise indicated, the declarations and reservations
were made upon ratification, acceptance, approval
or accession.)
Austria
Declaration:
"The Republic of Austria declares in accordance
with article 15 paragraph 2 of the Convention that
it accepts both of the means of dispute settlement
mentioned in this paragraph as compulsory in relation
to any Party accepting an obligation concerning
one or both of these means of dispute settlement."
Bulgaria
Declaration:
The Republic of Bulgaria declares that for a dispute
not resolved in accordance with paragraph 1 of article
15, it accepts both of the following means of dispute
settlement as compulsory in relation to any Party
accepting the same obligation:
a) Submission of the dispute to the International
Court of Justice;
b) Arbitration in accordance with the procedure
set out in Appendix VII.
Canada6
Reservation:
"Inasmuch as under the Canadian constitutional
system legislative jurisdiction in respect of environmental
assessment is divided between the provinces and
the federal government, the Government of Canada
in ratifying this Convention, makes a reservation
in respect of proposed activities (as defined in
this Convention) that fall outside of federal legislative
jurisdiction exercised in respect of environmental
assessment."
European Community
Declarations made upon signature and confirmed
upon ratification:
"It is understood, that the Community Member
States, in their mutual relations, will apply the
Convention in accordance with the Community's internal
rules, including those of the EURATOM Treaty, and
without prejudice to appropriate amendments being
made to those rules.
"The European Community considers that, if
the information of the public of the Party of origin
takes place when the environmental impact assessment
documentation is available, the information of the
affected Party by the Party of origin must be implemented
simultaneously at the latest.
"The Community considers that the Convention
implies that each Party must assure, on its territory,
that the public is provided with the environmental
impact assessment documentation, that it is informed
and that its observations are collected."
Declaration:
Upon approval:
"In the field covered by the Espoo Convention,
Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985, annexed
to this Declaration, applies. It enables the Community
to comply with most of the obligations under the
Espoo Convention. Member States are responsible
for the performance of those obligations resulting
from the Espoo Convention not currently covered
by Community law and more specifically by Directive
85/337/EEC. The Community underlines that Directive
85/337/EEC does not cover the application of the
Espoo Convention between the Community on the one
hand and non-Member States party to the Espoo Convention
on the other hand. The Community will inform the
depositary of any future amendment to Directive
85/337/EEC.
From this, it follows that the Community, within
the limits indicated above, is competent to enter
into binding commitments on its own behalf with
non-members countries which are Contracting Parties
to the Espoo Convention."
France
Declarations:
.... When approving the Convention on Environmental
Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context, signed
at Espoo on 25 February 1991, the Government of
the French Republic declares that it associates
itself with the declarations made by the European
Commission, both when signing this Convention and
when depositing the Community's instrument of ratification,
and stresses in particular that:
- In its relations with the member States of the
European Union, France will apply the Convention
in accordance with the Union's internal rules, including
those laid down in the Euratom treaty;
- When the public in the Party of origin is provided
with information through the public distribution
of the environmental impact assessment documentation,
the notification of the affected Party by the Party
of origin must be given no later than when the documentation
is distributed;
- The Convention implies that it is the responsibility
of each Party to ensure the public distribution
within its territory of the environmental impact
assessment documentation, inform the public and
collect its comments, except where different bilateral
arrangements apply.
It specifies that, any projects for which a request
for authorization or approval is required and has
already been submitted to the competent authority
at the time when the Convention enters into force
in France shall not be subject to the Convention.
Lastly, it specifies that the word 'national' in
article 2, paragraph 8, of the Convention shall
be understood to refer to national laws, national
regulations, national administrative provisions
and commonly accepted national legal practices.
Liechtenstein
Declaration concerning article 15 (2):
"The Principality of Liechtenstein declares
in accordance with article 15, paragraph 2, of the
Convention that it accepts both of the means of
dispute settlement mentioned in this paragraph as
compulsory in relation to any Party accepting an
obligation concerning one or both of these means
of dispute settlement."
Netherlands
Declaration:
"The Kingdom of the Netherlands declares,
in accordance with paragraph 2 of article 15 of
[the said Convention], that it accepts both means
of dispute settlement referred to in that paragraph
as compulsory in relation to any Party accepting
one or both of these means of dispute settlement."
United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland
Upon signature:
"The United Kingdom considers the Convention
is incomplete. Annex I of the Convention lists offshore
hydrocarbon production. The United Kingdom considers
there is no reason to exclude onshore hydrocarbon
production from Annex I, and therefore intends to
seek an early amendment to the Convention to remedy
this omission."
Objections
(Unless
otherwise indicated, the declarations and reservations
were made upon ratification, acceptance, approval
or accession.)
Spain
26 May 1999
With regard to the reservation made by Canada upon
ratification :
The Government of the Kingdom of Spain notes that
the said reservation is of a general nature, rendering
compliance with the provisions of the Convention
dependent on certain norms of Canada's internal
legislation.
The Government of the Kingdom of Spain believes
that this general reservation gives rise to doubts
concerning Canada's commitment to the object and
purpose of the Convention and recalls that, according
to article 19 (c) of the Vienna Convention on the
Law of Treaties, reservations that are incompatible
with the object and purpose of a treaty are impermissible.
It is in the common interest of States that treaties
to which they have decided to become parties should
be respected in their entirety by all parties, and
that States should be prepared to adapt their internal
legislation to comply with their obligations under
those treaties. A general reservation such as that
made by the Government of Canada, which does not
clearly specify either the provisions of the Convention
to which it applies or the scope of the derogation,
undermines the foundations of international treaty
law.
The Government of the Kingdom of Spain therefore
objects to the aforementioned general reservation
made by the Government of Canada to the Convention
on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary
Context. This objection does not prevent the entry
into force of the Convention between the Kingdom
of Spain and Canada.
Sweden
26 May 1999
With regard to the reservation made by Canada upon
ratification:
"The Government of Sweden is of the view that
the general reservation made by the Government of
Canada does not clarify to which extent Canada considers
itself bound by the Convention.
It is in the common interest of States that treaties
to which they have chosen to become parties are
respected as to their object and purpose by all
parties, and that States are prepared to undertake
any legislative changes necessary to comply with
their obligations under the treaties. Furthermore,
according to the Vienna Convention on the Law of
Treaties of 23 May 1969, and well established customary
international law, a reservation contrary to the
object and purpose of the treaty shall not be permitted.
Sweden does not consider the reservation made by
the Government of Canada as admissible unless the
Government of Canada, by providing additional information
or through subsequent practice, ensures that the
reservation is compatible with the provisions essential
for the implementation of the object and purpose
of the Convention. The Government of Sweden therefore,
pending clarification of the exact extent of the
reservation, objects to the [...] general reservation
made by the Government of Canada.
NOTES
1. Czechoslovakia had
signed the Convention on 30 August 1991. See also
note 1 under "Czech Republic" and note
1 under "Slovakia" in the "Historical
Information" section in the front matter of
this volume.
2. Upon signature, the
Government of Denmark made the following declaration
(which was not confirmed upon approval):
Decision reserved as concerns the application
of the Convention to the Faeroe Islands and Greenland.
On 12 December 2001, the Secretary-General received
from the Government of Denmark a communication declaring
that the Convention shall apply to the Faeroe Islands
and Greenland as from 14 March 1997.
3. Upon depositing its
instrument of approval, the Government of France
declared the following:
The Government of the French Republic declares
that the Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment
in a Transboundary Context, signed at Espoo on 25
February 1991, does not apply to the territory of
French Polynesia.
4. For the Kingdom in
Europe.
5. On behalf of the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,
the Bailiwick of Jersey, the Bailiwick of Guernsey,
the Isle of Man and Gibraltar.
6. In this regard, the
Secretary-General received from the following States,
communications on the dates indicated:
Finland (28 May 1999):
In the view of the Government of Finland the
general reservation made by the Government of Canada
does not adequately clarify to which extent Canada
considers itself bound by the Convention. It is
of fundamental importance that States are prepared
to undertake legislative changes necssary to comply
with their obligations under their treaties.
Furthermore, according to article 19 of the
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 23 May
1969 as well as customary international law a reservation
incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty
shall not be permitted.
Accordingly, Finland objects to the general
reservation of Canada as not compatible with the
object and purpose of the [Convention].
Italy (1 June 1999):
The Italian Government notes that the reservation
made by the Government of Canada in ratifying the
Espoo Convention is of a general nature, since it
subordinates the application of the said Convention
to certain provisions of Canada's domestic law.
The Italian Government is of the view that this
general reservation raises doubts regarding Canada's
commitment to the object and purpose of the Convention,
and wishes to recall that under article 19 (c) of
the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a
State may not formulate a reservation that is incompatible
with the object and purpose of the treaty to which
it refers.
It is in the common interest of States to ensure
that the treaties to which they are parties are
respected in their entirety by all the Contracting
Parties, and that the latter are willing to undertake
the legislative changes needed to comply with the
obligations arising under such treaties.
Reservations of a general nature like the one
made by the Government of Canada, which do not clearly
specify the scope of the derogations resulting therefrom,
undermine the foundations of international treaty
law.
Consequently, the Italian Government opposes
the aforesaid general reservation made by the Government
of Canada to the [Convention].
France (communicated on 8 June 1999 and confirmed
on 15 June 2001)
The Government of the French Republic has considered
the reservation made by the Government of Canada
with respect to the Convention on Environmental
Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context.
This reservation, which stresses that legislative
jurisdiction with respect to environmental impact
assessment is divided between the provinces and
the federal government, limits the responsibilities
assigned by the Convention to a federal State. However,
it is a principle of international law that a State
may not invoke its domestic law to justify its failure
to fulfil its obligations under a treaty. Moreover,
since the reservation is worded in a very general
fashion, the Government of the French Republic has
been unable to establish to which provisions of
the Convention the reservation applies or could
apply, or in what way; it believes that application
of the reservation could render the provisions of
the Convention null and void. It therefore objects
to the reservation.
France would be in a position to consider the
reservation made by Canada admissible in the light
of articles 19 and 21 of the Vienna Convention only
if Canada demonstrates, by means of additional statements
or through its future practice, that its reservation
is in keeping with provisions that are essential
for achieving the object and purpose of the Convention.
This objection does not preclude the entry into
force of the Convention between Canada and France.
Norway (28 July 1999):
"It is in the common interest of States
that treaties to which they have chosen to become
Parties are respected as to their object and purpose
by all Parties and that States are prepared to undertake
any legislative changes necessary to comply with
their obligations under the treaties. Furthermore,
according to well-established customary international
law, a reservation contrary to the object and purpose
of the treaty shall not be permitted. Norway holds
the opinion that according to customary international
law, reservations of a general character, taken
because of division of jurisdictional competence
in the national constitution, normally are incompatible
with the object and purpose of the Convention in
question. Such a reservation does not sufficiently
clarify to which extent the reserving State Party
is bound by the provisions of the Convention.
Norway does not consider the reservation made
by the Government of Canada as admissible unless
the Government of Canada, by providing additional
information or through subsequent practice, ensures
that the reservation is compatible with the provisions
essential for the implementation of the object and
purpose of the Convention. The Government of Norway,
therefore, pending clarification of the exact extent
of the reservation, objects to the aforesaid general
reservation made by the Government of Canada."
Luxembourg (20 August 1999):
The Government of Luxembourg notes that this
reservation is of a general nature and makes compliance
with the Convention subject to certain provisions
of Canada's domestic laws.
This reservation casts doubt on Canada's commitment
to the object and purpose of the Convention. Luxembourg
wishes to recall that, under the provisions of article
19 (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties,
reservations that are incompatible with the object
and purpose of a treaty are not authorized.
It is in the common interest of States that
treaties to which they decide to accede be fully
complied with by all parties and that States be
prepared to adapt their national legislation to
their obligations under such treaties. A general
reservation such as the one made by the Government
of Canada, which specifies neither the provisions
of the Convention to which it applies nor its scope,
undermines the basis of the international law of
treaties.
The Government of Luxembourg therefore objects
to this general reservation made by the Government
of Canada with respect to the Convention on Environmental
Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context. This
objection does not preclude the entry into force
of the Convention as between the Grand Duchy of
Luxembourg and Canada.
On 21 January 2000, the Secretary-General received
from the Government of Canada, the following communication:
"The Government of Canada notes that some
States have formulated objections to the reservation
of the Government of Canada to the Espoo Convention.
The Government of Canada wishes to reaffirm its
view that a reservation in respect of proposed activities
(as defined in the Convention) that fall outside
federal legislative jurisdiction exercised in respect
of environmental assessment is compatible with the
object and purpose of the Convention and is thus
admissible. In reaffirming its position on this
matter, the Government of Canada refers to the negotiating
history of the Convention and specifically to the
sixth and final meeting of the Working Group to
elaborate a draft Convention. At that meeting, the
states present agreed to delete a draft article
that would have prohibited all reservations to the
Convention. It was and remains Canada's understanding
that the agreement to delete the prohibition on
reservations was linked directly with a further
decision not to include a "federal clause"
within the Convention.
Canada further wishes to state that Canada's
reservation to the Espoo Convention is an integral
part of Canada's ratification of the Convention
and is not severable therefrom. Canada can only
accept treaty relations with other states on the
basis of the reservation as formulated and in conformity
with Article 21 of the Vienna Convention on the
Law of Treaties."
Ireland (25 July 2002):
"The Government of Ireland has noted the
reservation made by the Government of Canada when
ratifying the Convention. The reservation appears
to limit the application of the Convention in respect
of Canada, to the proposed activities (as defined
by the Convention) only insofar as they fall within
the federal legislative jurisdiction exercised by
Canada in respect of environmental assessment and
therefore to have the effect of excluding the Convention's
application to Canada insofar as the proposed activities
fall within the jurisdiction of the Canadian provinces.
The reservation is of such a general nature
that the Government of Ireland is unable to establish
the extent to which Canada considers itself bound
by the Convention.
Furthermore, it is a principle of international
law that a State may not invoke its domestic law
to justify its failure to fulfil its obligations
under a treaty. It is, therefore, the view of the
Government of Ireland that, without further clarification,
it is not possible to determine whether or not the
reservation is compatible with the object and purpose
of the Convention in question.
Pending further clarification from Canada ensuring
that the reservation is compatible with the object
and purpose of the Convention, the Government of
Ireland objects to the reservation made by Canada."
Direct access to UN
Treaties (requires access permission).