Aarhus Convention’s Accomplishments and Issues

Anyi Li

The Aarhus Convention is a legally-binding agreement formulated by European and Asian governments to advance environmental justice. Essentially, it is a treaty signed, ratified, and amended by countries worldwide (mainly in Europe) to agree they would utilize national law to enforce the agreement. Thus, it has more power and actual bearings on urban environmental policy-making in all countries that are parties to the agreement than pledges. 

With its legal power, the Aarhus Convention has many areas that can lead to significant outcomes. Mainly, it encourages the public to participate in the decision-making process. For instance, in Article 5, the Aarhus Convention requires the state to maintain and update electronic versions of publicly-accessible lists and files and have government officials assist the public in accessing such lists, files, and information (Article 5). Additionally, according to Article 4, the party requesting access to environmental information can do so “without an interest having to be stated” (Article 4). With necessary information readily available, the public has the resources to participate in decision-making. And Article 6 mandates governments to allow sufficient time and notifications to the public so that people can participate (Article 6). This means all people could serve as inspectors and investigators of its city’s environmental policies if they believe themselves to endure environmental injustice, which would immediately put more pressure on governments to advance environmental justice for all its citizens, even just for the sake of public image. Moreover, if the public discovers anything they believe to be environmentally harmful to them through studying the release of environmental information, they could affect policy change by participating in the decision-making process. 

Still, as with many international environmental agreements, there are lingering challenges regarding how some parts of the Aarhus Convention could have actual policy bearings. First, there is a clause saying the government could refuse the release of environmental information if such release may negatively affect “international relations” (Article 4). This is such a broadly defined term. Strictly speaking, a polluting company’s business could affect international commercial relations. There should be more specifications on what this term portends. Second, environmental benefits are comparatively long-term, while the economic benefits from pollution are comparatively short-term. By allowing a semi-direct democracy on urban environmental policies, what if the public chooses short-term benefits instead of long-term ones?

Bibliography:

“Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters.” Aarhus Convention, United Nations Economic Commission for Europe.