| ffffffff |
 |
| //// |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
| dddd |
| Under Construction |
|
|
| Report of the Workshop on the creation of the �International Commission for Impact Assessment (ICIA)� held on November 8 and 9, 2001 in Scheveningen, the Netherlands |
 |
|
| Present: Governments: * Czech Republic Ministry of Environment Mr Jir� Guth, Advisor to the Minister of Environment * Georgia Ministry of Environment Mr Givi Kalandadze, Head of the Department of Strategic Planning and Waste Management * Ghana Ministry of Environment/ EPA- Environmental Protection Agency Mr. Yaw Amoyaw-Osei Ag. Head Environmental Assessment Audit * Netherlands Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and Environment, Directorate General Environmental Management Mr. Jaap Enter, Director Strategy and Management Ms. Janny Ratelband and Mr. Klaas Jan Moning Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Directorate General International Co-operation Mr Herman Specker, Chief International Environmental Policy Mr Henk van Trigt * Norway Ministry of Environment Mr Terje Lind Deputy Director General Environment * Peoples Republic of China Hong Kong - Environmental Protection Department Ms Shirley Sau-Ling Lee Hon Principal Environmental Protection Officer International Organisations: * UNEP Mr. Hussein Abaza Chief Economics and trade Unit * WHO � World Health Organsation Sustainable Development and Healthy Environments dept. Mr. Carlos Dora Senior Policy Analyst * European Commission � Directorate General Environment. Mr. Claude Rouam, Mrs. Lieselotte Feldmann Unit B3, Territorial Dimension * Central American Commision for Environment and Development (CCAD) Mr Mauricio Castro Salazar Executive Director of the CCAD Ms Grethel Aguilar, Consultant Prosiga project Financial Institutions and Commercial Banks: * The World Bank. Quality Assurance and Compliance Unit (QACU) Mr. Maninder Gill * European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) Environmental Appraisal Unit Mr. William Kennedy * The Asian Development Bank (ADB) Mr John Lintjer Vice President Finance and Administration Mr Ely Anthony Ouano Ms Carola Molitor Senior external relations officer * Rabo Bank Netherlands Mr Bart Jan Krouwel Head directorate Special Products and Services Mr Daan Dijk Manager Sustainable Energy Projects Private Industry: ? Shell International Mr Joop Marquenie Environmental Advisor NGOs: * International Union for Conservation of Nature [IUCN) Ms Andrea Athanas * World Wide Fund for Nature[WWF] Ms Jenny Heap Conservation Policy Director * International Association for Impact Assessment [IAIA] Ms Maria Rosario do Partidario Past president Secr�tariat Francophone IAIA Mr Michel Bouchard Directeur Sectr�tariat francophone de l�AIEI Invited persons who sent their regrets: * Mr. Zhu Xinxiang, director Department of Supervision and Management, State Environmental Protection Administration, Peoples Republic of China * Mr. Peter Leonard, Hydro Quebec, Quebec, Canada * Mr. Gerardo Vina Vizcaino, director general Ambiental Sectorial, Colombia * Ms. Xiamara Gomez, minister of Environment, Honduras * Mr. Louis Germain, Provincial Government of Quebec, Canada * Ms. Cheryl Wasserman, US Environmental Protection Agency |
| 1) Introduction by Niek Ketting, chairman In his opening address Niek Ketting extends a warm welcome to all participants. He stresses that the discussion should be open. There are no restrictions on issues and subjects. The participants are encouraged to address frankly any topic that they deem relevant. They are invited to present the most likely position of their organisations. 2) Introductory round by the participants All participants briefly introduce themselves and the organisations they represent. Each participant also indicates his or her motivation for joining the workshop. All participants show a keen interest in the ICIA concept. A number of participants already express support for the initiative. 3) Presentation of the ICIA concept by Jules Scholten 4) Statements The chairman�s invitation in his opening statement to speak openly and frankly is accepted unanimously. At the suggestion of one participant the so-called �Chatham House Rules� apply, i.e. the institutions are not strictly bound by what their representatives say during the meeting. In their statements all participants address the list of �points of attention� (see Annex 3) that was distributed a few days before the start of the workshop to facilitate the discussion. It appears that on most points there is clear convergence of opinions and agreement on the need, the field of application as well as the capacity and structure of the proposed organisation. Needs assessment There is a need for the ICIA performing independent review, particularly in controversial situations and transboundary issues. A good example was presented concerning a project in Ghana where the Dutch Commission for EIA was called upon to perform a review of an EIA report that was contentious. If there would have been the ICIA, Ghana would have called on the ICIA instead. Establishment of the ICIA should be at global level. It can function as an umbrella for regional institutions. In its operation, the ICIA will promote good practice in the use of (E)IA and S(E)A. The focus of its operation probably will be on developing countries and on countries with economies in transition. However, there should be no geographical limitations. National governments certainly can call on the services of the ICIA. But also other stakeholders including private industry, NGOs and financial institutions should be entitled to call on the ICIA. It is essential to recognise that the ICIA should refrain from responding to public pressure groups that are dissatisfied with the outcome of national reviews. Involvement of the ICIA must have the competent government�s consent in principle. In that way national sovereignty is observed and respected. Also, the ICIA must concentrate on content issues and not speak out on the (un)acceptability of development proposals. In doing so, legal and financial liabilities can be avoided. The ICIA cannot act as an appeal body. However, when the ICIA has established a credible position as independent advisory body, its advice carries weight. There is the feeling that the ICIA if established, will not pre-empt the development of in-country impact assessment review capacity. Through its operation, the ICIA should contribute to developing in-country capacities. There is no overlap with other institutions such as the IAGs of the World Bank and the Inspection Panels of the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank. The ICIA must be complementary to these institutions. Field of application The ICIA should review impact assessments of projects, plans and programmes. In performing these reviews the ICIA will also influence the quality of the decision making processes. The ICIA must ensure its credibility through maintaining independence and neutrality. There is consensus that it is preferable if the ICIA is involved early in the decision making process. Involvement in a late stage of the decision making process is also possible as it may turn out that only in the reviewing stage prior to the actual decision making there is need for an independent opinion. In addition, the ICIA could also be asked to review monitoring studies following the decision and the start of the implementation. There is widespread agreement amongst the participants about what issues the ICIA should address. It must move beyond environmental issues and include economic and social issues as well. Also, it should take into account the cross-cutting issues. The ICIA�s review framework should be based on in-country standards, on standards of international conventions that the country concerned has ratified and on standards of funding institutions if agreeable to the competent government authorities. Where there are no standards, the ICIA should observe good practice. Concerning the matter of confidentiality of information, it is clear that IA reports are public. The competent authority and the developer can agree that some information is too confidential to be released. The ICIA should respect this but it should be aware that the claim of confidentiality does not preclude performing a review. In practice however, claims to confidentiality of information are not made often. Capacity The capacity of the ICIA to deal with requests for advice, is determined by the demand for advice. The ICIA should start small and be selective in its response in the beginning and then grow to demand. Sufficient funding must be secured to meet demand. Structure The ICIA must be a non-profit organisation. Most participants feel that the ICIA should be set up as a �stand alone� organisation as this is advantageous from the point of view of independence and avoiding the bureaucracy of existing multilateral organisations. Some others however, are in favour of affiliation with an established international organisation. All agree that it is essential to have the support of multilateral organisations and develop strategic partnerships with these organisations. Most participants agree that the ICIA should be a membership organisation that has a two-tier structure: (1) a foundation facilitating (2) the independent expert body to perform its advisory review work on content issues in impact assessments. The ICIA should avoid becoming an exclusive club of national governments. The mainstay of the ICIA is its pool of experts supported by a small secretariat. The ICIA must involve independent local expertise as much as possible. 5) Discussion on remaining issues At the beginning of the second day of the workshop chairman Niek Ketting notes that on most points and issues the opinions converge. He proposes to concentrate the discussion on the remaining points that still need discussion and the question how to proceed. Question: Should the ICIA concentrate on reviewing the product, i.e. to provide only the �ultimate opinion� on an impact assessment or should it also review the process, i.e. to address a wider mandate (capacity building, training etc.)? There is agreement on reviewing the product in all cases. It is remarked that such an opinion should not be regarded as the �ultimate� opinion but as an independent and authoritative opinion. Reviews would include review of compliance with laws and regulations that are in force in the country itself. It is possible though, when the ICIA has gathered experience, that it would go into reviewing the process but only on special government request. This review would specifically focus on laws and regulations and on the quality of the EIA process as facilitated by the national laws and regulations. The review would also include the adequacy of the institutional set-up for effective EIA. It is clear that the involvement of the ICIA is demand driven. Demands come from the various stakeholders concerned with Impact Assessment in support of decision making. Requests to involve the ICIA could be initiated by any of these stakeholders, but requests can only be responded to if the pertinent government consents. What happens if an NGO that is active in a country that is not a member of the ICIA would call on the services for the ICIA? Would that mean that the ICIA can only respond if that particular government would become a member? Such situations and their consequences for the involvement of the ICIA need further attention. Chairman Ketting states that there should be no relation between the size of funding contributions and rights to call on the services of the ICIA. Membership fees should be differentiated according to members� carrying capacity. Question: Should the ICIA be a �stand alone� organisation or should it be �affiliated� with an established international organisation? Since most participants are in favour of the �stand alone� approach with strong strategic partnerships with other international institutions, the conclusion is that the ICIA should start as a stand alone organisation. In the initial stage of operation, this approach must be viewed in the light of: * the mission of the ICIA * the matter of operational cost efficiency; in other words, could affiliation be more advantageous in terms of operational costs? * possible legal considerations. Question: Which institutions can call on the ICIA: only members or also non-members? It is evident that members can call on the services of the ICIA. Not all participants feel that the consent of the competent government is absolutely needed before the ICIA can act. The possibility of non-members asking for advice paying a professional fee should be left open. In case this possibility is considered viable, it should only apply if requesting non-members adhere to the mission of the ICIA. Question: Once established, how should the ICIA�s performance be reviewed and evaluated? It was agreed that external evaluation would be needed once every three years. Question: Where should the ICIA be located? Preferably in a developing country. The suggestion was made to start somewhere and after some time to move to a central location in the region where the demand for the services of the ICIA appears strongest. The discussion led to the conclusion that a set of criteria must be developed. Some criteria were mentioned already: * quality and reliability of office and communication facilities * easy accessibility by airlines and possibly other forms of transport * political stability in the candidate host country * level of running costs * privileges offered by candidate host country facilitating the operation of the ICIA and its staff 6) How to proceed and next steps to establish the ICIA The chairman concludes that a nucleus of stakeholders amongst the participants is needed to act as a �task force� in taking the initiative further. He asks and receives the mandate from the participants to establish this task force. The Commission for EIA will act as the secretariat of the task force. The chairman asks who among the participating institutions would be interested to fund the next step towards establishment of the ICIA. The EC representative responds that the EC is interested. He asks on which account the contribution could be made. A participant suggests the IAIA account. However, the account of the Dutch Commission for EIA that has taken the lead in the initiative so far, is more appropriate. Chairman Niek Ketting emphasises that the initiative must materialise in 2002; if not the initiative runs the risk to evaporate. There are two international meetings in 2002 when key steps can be made; the annual IAIA meeting in June in The Hague, the Netherlands and in September when the World Summit �Rio+10� is scheduled in Johannesburg, South Africa. Concrete actions for the coming months are: * preparation and adoption of the workshop�s report * establishment of the �task force� to further develop the initiative * preparation by the task force of a proposal including the organisational structure and the launch of the ICIA (including another meeting prior to the launch of the ICIA) * estimation by the task force of the cost for the next phase and preparation of the business plan for the first three years of operation of the ICIA * enlist other potentially interested parties (e.g. those stakeholders that sent their regrets but showed a definite interest in the concept, the World Business Council, ILO, private internationally operating companies) * presentation of the proposal, the estimation of the cost for the next step in the preparation and the draft business plan in February 2002. 7) Closing statement Chairman Niek Ketting thanks all participants for their active contribution to the workshop. The result is positive and encourages to proceed with the initiative and create the ICIA in 2002. The workshop is closed at 12.30 on Friday November 9. |
|