Title: Implementation of the Arhus Convention in

Romania
Case studies on facilitating dialogue in
environmental decision-making

Name: Patricia Ciobanu

Student number: S4946898

Word Count: 998

 1. Introduction

This paper will analyze compliance of Romania with the Aarhus Convention from the perspective of
the public participation pillar. The aim is to see whether the national and local regulatory frameworks
on public participation are ‘updating’ the minimum standards of the Aarhus Convention and whether
the public participation standards are in line with the element of dialogue of the social insights, as
depicted in the article of Perlaviciute 1. In light of this, this paper will 1) lay out the relevant national
framework ; 3) study four local authorities and 4) identify the challenges in implementation.

2. Legal framework on the national level

Romania signed the Aarhus Convention on 25 June 1998 and ratified it by Law no. 86/2000, enacted
on 11 July 2000. The process of implementation of the Aarhus Convention was initiated with the
enactment of Law 294/2003, which provides the Arhus Convention principles; and Government
Decision No. 878/2005 on public access to environmental information.

Regarding the element of dialogue, the relevant articles of the Convention are Art. 6-8. Romania
implemented the provisions of Art. 6 by issuing the Ministerial Order no. 860/2002 indicating the
modalities and the deadlines of public participation in the assessment of projects with environmental
impact.2 In addition, in order for the public to be aware of their participation opportunities, the
National Environmental Protection Agency (NEPA) developed the Environmental Impact
Assessment (EIA) database containing information about the projects likely to have an impact on the
environment and references to public participation. Other relevant regulations are Governmental
Decision No. 1076/2004 and No. 445/2009 concerning the environmental evaluation of plans and
projects. The newest enacted legislation is Law No. 292/2018, which strengthens the requirements for
public participation.3

3. Case studies of local authorities

To analyze whether Local Environmental Protection Agencies (LEPA) are allowing and facilitating
dialogue, this paper makes use of the information published on the LEPA’s website, as other sources
could not be found.

● Bucuresti

LEPA Bucuresti is providing the national framework related to environmental matters, which includes
public participation, but it is unclear whether it elaborates local regulations in this sense. There is
information about the EIA procedure4, reports about projects likely to impact the environment, but it
is not sufficiently clear if and how the public can participate. There are few public announcements
about public hearings, meetings, or debates. The website is not updated with new ones, nor with
follow-ups with outcomes of the past public hearings.
1 Goda Perlaviciute, ‘Contested climate policies and the four Ds of public participation: From normative
standards to what people want’ (2021) 13(1) WIREs Climate Change <http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/wcc.749>
accessed 28 April 2023.
2 Ministry of Environment and Management of Waters ‘Report on the Implementation of the Aarhus
Convention’ 2005.
3 Ministry of Environment, Waters and Forests ‘Aarhus Convention implementation report in accordance with
Decision IV/4 2017-2020’.
4 Local Environmental Protection Agency Bucuresti <Reglementari - ANPM> accessed 28 April 2023.
 ● Valcea

The website5 of the LEPA Valcea is constantly updated with information about projects and plans,
public announcements about public hearings and decisions taken. Every announcement regarding
public hearings includes information about the project to be discussed, the place of the hearing, and
the deadline for submitting comments. Even if some reports about projects are not posted, the public
announcement indicates where those can be found.

● Sibiu

Comparatively, the website of the LEPA Sibiu is the most comprehensive when it comes to informing
about public participation under the national framework. 6 However, based on the limited number of
public announcements posted, it is unclear whether the public hearings are not announced or just not
scheduled. Even in the case when a public debate is scheduled, it is posted generally two weeks
before, which can leave little time for preparation. However, there is a large number of public
announcements calling for suggestions.

● Suceava

Similarly to LEPA Sibiu, LEPA Suceava has detailed information about the possibilities for the
public to participate. On the website, the public can find the EIA and SEA procedures, where there is
clear information on the way public participation is organized, how and who can participate in public
debates and what are the advantages of participation. 7 There are posts which call for suggestions about
projects and comments to contest decisions, but very few about scheduled debates.

4. Challenges in implementation

Analyzing the legislation, it may seem that Romania is actively implementing the Aarhus Convention
and is updating its national regulations. However, the literature and the case studies suggest that in
practice, various challenges prevent an effective implementation 8. In case ACCC/C/2012/69, it was
found that Romania violated Art. 6 by failing to notify the interested parties and ensure an effective
public debate 9. Romania also failed to provide reasonable time for the public to submit comments 10.
At the local level, there are rarely procedural rules developed, resulting in lack of legal responsibility
for ensuring dialogue.11 This can be explained by lack of resources 12 and weak local administrative

5 LEPA Valcea <Acasa - ANPM> accessed 28 April 2023.

6 LEPA Sibiu <Cadru legislativ - ANPM> accessed 28 April 2023.
7 LEPA Suceava <Procedura EIA - Cadru legislativ - ANPM> accessed 28 April 2023.
8 Bogdana Neamtu, Dr. Dacian C. Dragos ‘Mimicking environmental transparency: the implementation of the
Aarhus Convention in Romania’ Center for Good Governance Studies (2015). <Mimicking Environmental
Transparency: The Implementation of the Aarhus Convention in Romania by Dacian C. Dragos, Bogdana
Neamtu :: SSRN)> accessed 27 April 2023.
9 Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee ACCC/C/2012/69
10 ACCC/C/2010/51.
11 Tatiana R. Zaharchenko & Gretta Goldenman, 'Accountability in Governance: The Challenge of
Implementing the Aarhus Convention in Eastern Europe and Central Asia' (2004) 4 Int'l Env't Agreements: Pol
L & Econs 229
12 Ministry of Environment and Management of Waters ‘Report on the Implementation of the Aarhus
Convention’ 2005.
capacity. When there are fewer resources invested in the local agencies, there is a missing link
between the legislative framework and implementation 13.
The most encouraging local authority that provides for a procedure for the public debates and
stimulates participation in dialogue is LEPA Suceava. The other LEPAs only provide the minimum
requirement of public participation but do not specify the procedures. LEPA Valcea does not provide
such a procedure, but it is the local authority where the public is the most informed about the future
public debates through a large number of public announcements.
All the LEPAs failed to publish answers to questions posed in debates, minutes of meetings or what
influence public dialogue had on decision making. This practice shows that public authorities tend to
consider public intervention insignificant, as technical experts know more about a project anyway. 14
However, with the NGOs expressing the need for more effective public participation and better
dialogue 15, the approach of the authorities is changing for the better.

5. Conclusion

It is to be concluded that Romania successfully implemented the Aarhus Convention on the national
level, but failed to implement it at the local level. The case studies revealed disparities in
implementation of the regulatory standards regarding dialogue. Some authorities such as LEPA
Suceava and Valcea encourage it through debates and public hearings, while others impede it,
resulting in a lack of transparency. The major challenges encountered are lack of resources, weak
administrative capacity and attitude towards environmental matters that is not in line with the current
developments.

13 Dunn, W.N., Staronova, K., & Pushkarev, S ‘Implementation: The Missing Link in Public Administration
Reform in Central and Eastern Europe (Eds. NISPACee 2006) 43−62.
14 Neamtu, B., Dragos, D. C., & Capraru, L. ‘Public Participation in environmental decision-making’ Central
European Public Administration Review (2014) <Public Participation in Environmental Decision Making in
Romania | Central European Public Administration Review (uni-lj.si)) accessed 25 April 2023.
15United Nations Economic Comission for Europe ‘Environmental Performance Reviews Romania’ 2021
< *ECE_CEP_189.pdf (unece.org)> accessed 25 April 2023