Dismantling environmental democracy: the EU Commission’s playbook

The political guidelines of Ursula von der Leyen’s second EU Commission underline how "Europe’s future in a fractured world will depend on having a strong democracy". She alerts us to how "[o]ur democratic systems and institutions are under attack" and stresses that "[w]e need to do more to protect our democracy."  

Yet last week, her commission conducted their very own attack on a key international regime protecting those very same democratic values.

This attack took place at the 8^th Meeting of the Parties (MOP) to the UNECE Aarhus Convention.

The pioneering Aarhus Convention protects three procedural rights — access to information, public participation and access to justice in environmental matters — in pursuit environmental democracy. 

Ratified in 2005 by the EU, the Aarhus Convention is a mixed agreement: member states are responsible for matters falling under their national competence, but given the desire for unity in external representation, they are seldom allowed to speak. 

Compliance is facilitated by the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee (ACCC), which considers communications from parties and members of the public, producing findings which, once endorsed by the MOP, become a binding interpretation of the convention. 

Words, not deeds?

Judging by the joint strategy of the EU and the UK at MOP-8, these findings cut a little too close to the bone.

The EU tends to treat itself as exceptional, and thus entitled to lower levels of compliance than member states. The EU (and the UK) have been found non-compliant on several occasions, and at this MOP faced several findings and recommendations. 

Another notable feature of the convention’s architecture is the Rapid Response Mechanism for Environmental Defenders, introduced to respond to the increasingly draconian treatment of environmental protestors and defenders.

The EU’s strategy at the MOP was to undermine and weaken these vital mechanisms. 

Clock strikes midnight

First, at midnight before the opening of the MOP, it introduced substantial changes to a draft decision promoting the effective protection of environmental defenders.

This meant that there was insufficient time for parties to consider significant changes on matters relating to human rights protection. 

Second, following the lead of the UK, the EU and its member states sought to postpone any discussion of the findings of the ACCC to the next MOP in four years time, claiming that they had not had enough time to consider the findings.

This was as lame an excuse as the ‘dog ate my homework’ because discussion on and endorsement of the findings has happened according to the same timeline for six consecutive MOPs.

The attempted delay was tantamount to a retrospective change of procedural rules. 

As far as the EU is concerned, the mandate to approve the critical findings had been approved in the Council in good time before the MOP. This was a political game to undermine the authority of the ACCC.

The chair of the ACCC, professor Áine Ryall warned the parties to "be careful what you wish for" reminding them that "the ACCC is seen as a leading light of the rule of law and democracy. To undermine the integrity of your own compliance mechanism, that sends an incredibly danger precedent beyond these four walls".

Ultimately the EU changed its position while the UK refused to endorse any of the findings. 

Third, the EU nominated, and aggressively lobbied for, a member of the commission legal service to be appointed to the ACCC.

Its members "serve in their personal capacity" and are expected to be "of high moral character and recognized competence in the fields to which the convention relates, including persons having legal experience."

Since the inception of the ACCC, "in their personal capacity" has been understood to exclude serving members of the executive branch of a party to the convention.

When a serving member of the ACCC was subsequently appointed to a national government position, she resigned from the committee.

Independence is required in fact and appearance. 

Glossing over the requirement of the EU staff regulations that an EU official must always "carry out his duties and conduct himself solely with the interests of the Union in mind", the commission scoffed at any suggestion that their preferred candidate would undermine the independence and integrity of the ACCC.

Justifying their choice with EU exceptionalism, they argued that the commission should not be compared to a national government given its task as the independent guardian of legality and observance of EU law. 

Faced with strong resistance from NGOs and the promised resignation of the chair (and possibly other members) of the ACCC, the commission did, with bad grace, withdraw their candidate. 

Finally, bolstering this attack on the convention, is a consistent and deliberate lack of financial support for its work.

As the secretariat reported, there remains $20,000 [€17,278] in the trust fund of the convention for 2026.

Despite this dire financial forecast, the EU tabled proposals on funding, effectively freezing the machinery of the convention. 

One way to avoid external human rights scrutiny is to never join a human rights treaty — just look at the EU’s foot-dragging with the European Convention on Human Rights.

But once you are in, exiting comes at a political cost.

The EU’s alternative strategy seems to be to dismantle the Aarhus Convention from within. 

Every month, hundreds of thousands of people read the journalism and opinion published by EUobserver. With your support, millions of others will as well.

If you're not already, become a supporting member today.