Reporting requirements in the Kiev Protocol on Pollutant Release and Transfer Registers (PRTRs): opportunities for enterprises and Signatory States Michael Stanley-Jones Environmental Information Management Officer Aarhus Convention Secretariat Environment and Human Settlements Division United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Working Group on Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Fifth session, Geneva , 02 June 2005

STATUS OF RATIFICATION of the AARHUS CONVENTION

TOTAL: 35 PARTIES Thirty-four UNECE member States and the European Community (EC) had deposited their instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession and were Parties to the Convention by the time of the second Meeting of the Parties (Almaty, 25-27 May 2005) 2

KIEV PROTOCOL ON POLLUTANT RELEASE AND TRANSFER REGISTERS (PRTRs) Kiev Protocol adopted and signed by 36 countries and the EC at 5 th Ministerial ‘Environment for Europe’ conference (21 May 2003)

3

The PRTR Protocol had 37 Signatories at time of MOP-2:

Armenia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Tajikistan, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Ukraine, the United Kingdom and the European Community.

5 in EECCA; 5 in SEE

4

LEGAL BASIS OF PRTR PROTOCOL

•

Legal basis: article 5.9 and 10.2 (e) and (i) of the Aarhus Convention, requiring each Party “to take steps to establish progressively ... a coherent, nationwide system of pollution inventories or registers on a structured, computerized and publicly accessible database compiled through standardized reporting.” . . .

[art. 5.9] … taking into account international processes and developments, including the elaboration of an appropriate instrument concerning pollution release and transfer registers or inventories ….” [10.2(i)]

5

PRTR PROTOCOL

•

Requires Parties to establish a publicly accessible national PRTR maintained through mandatory reporting of certain listed pollutants released or transferred from certain listed activities

•

Places indirect reporting obligations on facilities and their owners or operators

•

As a “Right-to-Know” instrument, can be viewed as promoting transparency of practice and corporate accountability

6

CORE ELEMENTS OF PROTOCOL

• • • • • •

Obligation on each Party to establish a PRTR which is: publicly accessible and user-friendly presents standardized, timely data on a structured, computerised database covers releases and transfers from certain major point sources begins to include some diffuse sources (e.g. transport, agriculture, small- and medium-sized enterprises) has limited confidentiality provisions allows public participation in its development and modification

7

CORE ELEMENTS OF PROTOCOL (2) and is based on system of reporting which is:

• • • • • •

mandatory annual multimedia (air, water and land) facility-specific (point sources) pollutant-specific for releases pollutant-specific or waste-specific for transfers

8

FACILITIES COVERED Facilities covered (annex I) include:

• • • • • • •

Thermal power stations and refineries Mining and metallurgical industries Chemical plants Waste and waste-water management plants Paper and timber industries Intensive livestock production and aquaculture Food and beverage production

9

POLLUTANTS

• • • • •

Pollutants covered (annex II) include: Greenhouse gases Acid rain pollutants Ozone-depleting substances Heavy metals Certain carcinogens, such as dioxins TOTAL: 86 pollutants, however Parties may add additional substances according to national needs. EU is preparing to do so…

10

PRTR obligations for a regulated facility

•

Determine reporting obligations

•

Perform MCE using “best available information”

•

Monitoring data

•

Emission factors

•

Mass balance equations

•

Indirect monitoring

•

Other calculations, engineering judgements and other methods

•

Complete/submit reports

•

Keep records and filing (art. 9)

•

Confidentiality claims, and

•

Participation in consultation process

11

OTHER GENERAL FEATURES

•

Parties required to work towards convergence between PRTR systems (e.g. waste-specific vs pollutant-specific reporting of transfers, use based vs release-based thresholds)

•

Co-ordination with other international processes (e.g. IOMC/IFCS, OECD, UNEP, UNITAR, EU, NACEC etc)

•

Open to non-Parties to Convention and non-ECE States

12

NEXT STEPS FOR PROTOCOL

• • • •

New Working Group on PRTRs established in Kiev to prepare for entry into force, 2 nd meeting held in April 2005 Setting up the ‘institutional architecture’: rules of procedure, compliance mechanism, financial arrangements etc. separate from Convention’s Preparation of technical guidance on implementation, due for publication in early 2006 Ratification by 2007, with 1 st 2008 or 2009 MOP expected in

13

Table 1: Calendar of meetings and key documents in preparation for the first MOP Meeting Date Analysis Draft decision 1st reading Draft decision 2nd reading MOP review and adoption or possible adoption WG-3 WG-4 WG-5 May or June 2006 Spring 2007 Autumn 2007 or Spring 2008 Financial arrangements (FA), Subsidiary bodies (SB) Rules of Procedure (ROP), Compliance mechanism (CM) Programme of work (POW), Reporting mechanism (RM), Technical assistance mechanism (TM) FA, SB POW, RM, TM ROP, CM FA, SB FA, SB MOP-1 2008 ROP 1 , CM 2 , FA, SB, POW, RM, TM

14

Cost Study underway: Cost guide for implementation of the UNECE Protocol on Pollutant Release and Transfer Registers (PRTRs) …as a complement to the recently compiled Guidance Document for implementation of the Protocol Some key features: * First phase of project produced a large financial budgeting model to quantify the detailed costs of compliance across time.



a country-by-country, bottom-up approach



Model goes down to the level of individual pollutants, taking into account other national MEA reporting obligations

15

Project now entering the data collection and model calibration phase

•

to examine how industrial facilities and regulatory authorities would meet their obligations

• • • • •

under the Protocol, document ‘best practices’; discuss cost-saving alternatives; estimate all related costs; analyse implications for national budgets; and develop user-friendly software that would be provided free of charge to interested parties to make their own calculations.

16

•

Visits to industrial sites already collecting relevant emissions and waste information, and to

•

Key regulatory authorities charged with overseeing similar programmes envisaged Invitation to the private sector to participate in further development of the guidance on implementation and costs, including pilot application of the model at facility level

The Working Group on PRTRs asked the secretariat to make more effort to ensure that representatives of the private sector were duly invited and encouraged to participate in its meetings and activities.

17

For information on GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS, REGIONAL and INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENTS SEE THE RESOURCE DIRECTORY OF

AARHUS CLEARINGHOUSE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL DEMOCRACY

http://aarhusclearinghouse.unece.org

and

PRTR VIRTUAL CLASSROOM

http:/prtrvc.unitar.org

18

19

Pollutant Release and Transfer Registers

20

MORE INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON THE AARHUS CONVENTION PRTR WEB PAGE: http://www.unece.org/env/pp/prtr.htm

[email protected]

21