81 - The Fourth Meeting of the Conference of the…

Readers of this blog will recall Aarhus Convention’s Latin American cousin, the Escazu Agreement. This post will summarise the main developments arising out of the fourth meeting of the Conference of the Parties (‘COP4’) to the Escazu Agreement.

COP4

COP4 took place between 21–24 April 2026 in Nassau, The Bahamas. While the previous COPs to the Escazu Agreement focused on establishing governance structures, COP4 prioritised putting the Agreement into practice.

There are three notable developments which are the focus of this blog post: the Secretariat of the Escazu Agreement’s two reports on (1) the operationalisation of pollutant emissions registries; and (2) the incorporation of Article 7 (public participation) in the environmental impact assessment frameworks of 26 countries in the region, as well as the announcement of the new Presidency of the Agreement.

Pollutant Emissions Registry

The key development of COP4 was the proposal for a pollutant emissions registry covering soil, air, water and subsoil. The aim of the registry is to generate standardised and publicly accessible data to improve transparency and support evidence-based decision-making.

Pollutant Release and Transfer Registers (PRTRs) are public information systems that collect, process, and publish verifiable data on the release of pollutants into air, water, soil, and subsoil, as well as on the transfer of waste and substances outside their site of origin for disposal, treatment, recycling, or recovery. At their very core, these instruments aim to facilitate (and, where effective, guarantee) the public’s right of access to environmental information (Articles 6 and 7 of the Agreement).

There are already a number of PRTRs in Latin America and the Caribbean. The Secretariat of the Escazu Agreement presented a report for COP4 on national good practices regarding the establishment, operation and content of PRTRs in the region. It also offered recommendation for their implementation and improvement. The key recommendations include:

Establishment of robust legal frameworks with early legislative backing to ensure PRTR legitimacy and long-term viability;
Designing systems via multi-stakeholder committees, clear objectives, and harmonised technical criteria (i.e., substances, thresholds, emissions);
Securing long-term sustainable financing, guaranteeing the operationality, updating, and continuous improvement of the systems; and
Regional integration (e.g., Escazu Agreement) for platform interoperability.

Expert groups will continue working towards regional alignment of the registry ahead of COP5.

Report on the Incorporation of Article 7 into Environmental Impact Assessment Frameworks

Further, the Secretariat presented a report analysing the extent to which public participation has been incorporated into the environmental impact assessment frameworks of 26 countries in the region. The report is of particular interest in light of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights’ Advisory Opinion on ‘Climate Emergency and Human Rights’. The report identified four key trends in the region.

First, most countries in the region have adopted procedures for consulting the public before decisions are taken. However, this does not in and of itself guarantee that the public is able to exercise these rights effectively.

Second, 53 per cent of the countries have incorporated the obligation to disclose technical elements of environmental studies. However, only 23 per cent of the countries have established frameworks to inform the public about how, when or where to exercise these rights.

Third, there are significant issues in enabling inclusive participation in decision-making processes across the region. Critically, the report identified lack of adaptations to participatory frameworks to facilitate the involvement of the wider public and vulnerable groups.

Fourth, less than four in ten countries systematically regulate the point at which the public receives a response on how their participation was considered in the decision-making process. This runs the risk of participation being a mere box-ticking exercise.

Overall, the report highlights that more work needs to be done by member states to guarantee effective right to participate in environmental matters across the region.

Presidency of the Escazu Agreement

Finally, on the last day of COP4, Saint Kitts and Nevis was elected President of the Escazu Agreement for a two-year term, taking over from Uruguay. It is the first time that a Caribbean nation has led the treaty’s presiding officers. The new Presidency’s priorities are the enhancement of participation, particularly for vulnerable and underrepresented groups and advancement of environmental protection for Small-Island Developing States. No doubt, as a Small-Island Developing State itself, Saint Kitts and Nevis’ Presidency will give a voice to, and strengthen the standing of, other vulnerable nations.

This guest blog post was written by Mateusz Slowik.

Mateusz is a co-editor of Climate Law’s Special Issue on environmental impact assessment and climate change. Previously, he worked as a Judicial Assistant in the High Court and as a Research Assistant at the Chinese University of Hong Kong on ‘Environmental Assessment as a Tool for Climate Change Mitigation’ (Oxford University Press, 2024).

----------------

Authors of the Aarhus blogs

– James Maurici KC – James has been in many of the leading cases on Aarhus costs including: R (RSPB) v SSJ [2017] 5 Costs L.O. 691; Case C 530/11 Commission v United Kingdom; Case C-260/11 Edwards v EA; R (Edwards) v EA (No.2) [2011] 1 Costs L.R. 70 and [2013] UKSC 78; and R (Edwards) v EA [2011] 1 W.L.R. 79. He has also appeared a number of times before the UNECE Aarhus Compliance Committee in Geneva, cases include: ACCC/C/2010/45; ACCC/C/2010/53; ACCC/C/2011/60; ACCC/C/2011/61; ACCC/C/2012/77; ACCC/C/2014/100 and 101; ACCC/C/2017/150. He is currently acting on the Free Trade Agreement Communication ACCC/C/2022/194. He was one of the contributors to the Aarhus Convention: A Guide for UK Lawyers (2015) and he has written and lectured extensively on the Aarhus Convention.

– Jacqueline Lean – Jacqueline has also been instructed on a number of matters concerning the Aarhus Convention, including appearing (with James Maurici KC) for United Kingdom before the Aarhus Compliance Committee on two communications concerning the Government’s decision to proceed with HS2 (ACCC/C/100 & 101); representing the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Secretary of State in R (CPRE Kent) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2019] EWCA Civ 1230 in which the Court of Appeal considered the approach to summary assessment of costs at permission stage when an Aarhus costs cap applied; and acting for the Secretary of State in R (RSPB) v Secretary of State for Justice [2018] Env LR 13, a challenge to the Government’s amendments to the Aarhus costs protections in the CPR (also with James Maurici KC). She is also a contributing author to Coppel’s ‘Information Rights’ on Environmental Information.

– Nick Grant – Nick joined Chambers in 2019 and has regularly advised on Aarhus related matters. He has represented the UK twice before the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee, appearing with James Maurici KC in ACCC/C/2017/150 (the Withdrawal Act case) and unled in the admissibility hearing for ACCC/C/2022/194 (the free trade agreements case).

– Margherita Cornaglia – Margherita’s public law practice often involves acting in claims raising environmental and climate change related issues. For instance, she acted as junior counsel in the judicial review of the Government’s Third National Adaptation Programme (NAP3), pursued with an Aarhus costs cap, advancing novel arguments under Part 4 of the Climate Change Act. She also acted as junior counsel for community claimants in the Launders Lane litigation, challenging Havering Council’s refusal to designate Arnold’s Field as contaminated land; that claim likewise proceeded with Aarhus costs protection to secure effective participation and accountability. Beyond litigation, she has advised solicitors on the Government’s recent consultation concerning access to justice in relation to the Aarhus Convention, drawing on her broader practice representing NGOs and affected communities in environmental and climate cases.

– Alex Shattock – Alex has been involved in a number of environmental claims including Friends of the Earth v SSLUHC (the Cumbria coal mine case: acting for Friends of the Earth in the Planning Inquiry and High Court, with Paul Brown KC and Toby Fisher); Cox and Ors v Oil and Gas Authority [2022] EWHC 75 (Admin) (representing Extinction Rebellion activists in a challenge to the Oil and Gas Authority’s Strategy, with David Wolfe KC and Merrow Golden); R (Hough) v SSHD [2022] EWHC 1635 (acting for the claimant in an environmental and equalities challenge to the controversial use of Napier Barracks as asylum seeker accommodation, with Alex Goodman KC and Charles Bishop). He regularly advises individual and NGO clients on Aarhus costs protection. Alex also has a keen interest in treaty law generally. He has a masters and PhD in public international law and has been involved in various treaty negotiations and treaty ratification processes.

– Rebecca Sage – Rebecca is a junior tenant at Landmark Chambers with a growing practice in planning and environmental law. She is regularly instructed on matters engaging the Aarhus Convention, usually through the lens of judicial review. Rebecca has a developing interest in this complex and important area of the law and its implications for access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice.