Report by Michael Ewing who attended the meeting on behalf of Friends of the Irish Environment.
Part One Mini Conference
‘Opening the Doors to Justice: The Challenge of Strengthening Public Access ’
All the presentations are all available at: http://www.unece.org/env/pp/a.to.j.htm
The first day of the meeting took the form of a ‘mini-conference’ with presentations by a number of leading experts in the field. This was intended to allow the opportunity for a free exchange of opinions on the ‘burning issues’ in the implementation of the third pillar of the Convention between a wider range of stakeholders than normally participate in task force meetings.
1. Professor Ludwig Kraemer of the Universities of Bremen and Copenhagen, former judge at the Landgericht Kiel, Germany, presented an overview of the Key challenges in implementing access to justice. He argued that there was a strong need to have a check on the acts and omissions of the administrative authorities to balance their power to protect and preserve the environment against the interests of the “voiceless environment”. However, broad access to justice could not be reached by maintaining the status quo but required a change in the legislative and/or judicial practices of all Parties. In this regard, injunctive relief, length of procedures and determination of costs, in particular, had been identified as often presenting obstacles to effective environmental protection. The courts could play an important role in interpreting relevant legal rules in line with the objectives of the Convention and thus objectively balance the interests of applicants acting altruistically to protect the general interest “environment” against the interests of operators, polluters or administrations. In summary, two key questions need to be asked: (a) Who shall protect the environment: the administration or (also) civil society? (b) How can the environment be protected against administrative acts or omissions, inertia or negligence? In suggesting wide access to the courts for citizens and environmental organisations, the Convention gives a clear answer to both questions.
2. Ms. Carol Hatton, WWF-UK, gave a presentation on “Access for whom? – The issue of legal standing”. After a brief summary of the provisions for standing under article 9 of the Convention, she examined the four broad categories of standing in article 9, paragraph 4, including issues such as actio popularis, legislated standing for recognized NGOs, sufficient interest standing, and restrictive subjective requirements for standing. Taking the European Court of Justice as an example of the fourth model, the speaker illustrated with case law the narrow interpretation of direct and individual concern taken by the Court. Reference was made to a study by De Sadeleer et al. (2002), which had concluded that the standing criteria imposed by the Parties represented a significant hurdle to access to environmental justice for NGOs. She concluded by stressing the need to finalize the draft EC Directive on access to justice in environmental matters, the important contribution the judiciary could make in adopting a broad interpretation of standing criteria, and the need for regular monitoring and review in order to highlight good practice and maintain pressure on the Parties to promote wide access to justice.
3. In his presentation, Professor Jan Darpö, University of Uppsala, Sweden, addressed the issue of “Effective remedies – Do they exist?” He stated that the concept of “effective remedies” was closely related to each nation’s legal system and traditions. However, there was no universal understanding among different legal systems in relation to the notion of “environmental procedure”. There were substantive differences in terms of procedural obstacles to access to justice between appeal systems in which courts acted in the ordinary course of appeal and had the authority to review the decision in its entirety and systems in which courts could only scrutinise a particular case on issues of legality. Comparative studies in the area could contribute to promoting understanding of access to justice, but the systemic differences made it necessary to be very specific when discussing matters concerning “effective remedies”, including time differentiation before and after activities have been started and terminated. Citing case examples, he stressed that the need for effective remedies could differ from one system to another, depending upon some key issues such as the time of action.
4. The plenary that followed discussed the idea of courts as arbiters between the administration and civil society. Questions were raised as to who protected the general interest and how to ensure the independence and discretion of the judiciary. The importance of
2 http://www.elaw.org/assets/pdf/be.FinalOrderNoCosts.pdf.
3 R (Corner House Research) v Secretary of State for Trade & Industry [2005], EWCA Civ 192.
immediate publication of relevant studies, as well as of open and transparent procedures and judgements given in writing, was particularly stressed. It was agreed that the experiences of and with courts varied in different countries, and that examples of best practice could be useful. The participants in particular discussed the issue of costs and the insecurity related to them, which remained a major obstacle to effective access to justice. Some participants also pointed out that fears that opening the doors to justice would result in floods of cases had proven to be groundless.
5. Ms. Olya Melen of the International Foundation Environment-People-Law, Ukraine, spoke on “Public interest advocacy: a key to better implementation?” In order to understand the role of public interest advocacy in the implementation of the Convention, several factors preventing individuals and NGOs from filing court cases had to be considered, such as; personal threats; the risk of strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs); psychological barriers; fear of the courts; financial implications; lack of professional experience and knowledge; low environmental awareness; conflicts between economic, social and environmental interests for individuals; and the lack of financial support, availability of lawyers and support from the local population for NGOs. Nevertheless, at present nearly 90 per cent of all court suits were initiated by NGOs. Furthermore, strategic lawsuits tended to be initiated by NGOs rather than individuals, underlining the key role of public interest advocates in the implementation of article 9 of the Convention.
6. Professor John Bonine of the University of Oregon, United States of America, addressed the issues of costs and “Getting SLAPPed”. He cited three recent cases which represented important developments relevant to financial barriers:
(a) In 2004, the Privy Council in London, the highest court in the Commonwealth of Nations, had ruled in a case where environmental NGOs had lost an appeal against a decision by the Court of Appeal of Belize “because this was a public interest case there should be no order as to costs of the appeal”2,
(b) In 2005, Corner House Research3, the Court of Appeal in the United Kingdom, had set the parameters for appropriate issuance of “protective costs orders” that ensured that if the NGO lost, it would not have to pay the lawyers’ costs of the other side: “The overriding purpose … is to enable the applicant to present its case to the court with a reasonably competent advocate without being exposed to such serious financial risks that would deter it from advancing a case of general public importance …. ”
(c) Also in 2005, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that two citizens who had been sued by a corporation for defamation had been denied the right to a fair trial and freedom of expression under Articles 6 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights because the Government of the United Kingdom had refused to provide funding for their lawyers to defend them.4
4 European Court of Human Rights, Steel and Morris v. United Kingdom, App No 6841601, Judgment of 15 February 2005 (summarized in www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200506/jtselect/jtrights/133/133.pdf at page 13).
7. The afternoon session of the mini-conference was chaired by Professor Marc Pallemaerts of the Free University of Brussels, Belgium, Senior Fellow at the Institute for European Environmental Policy.
8. In his presentation on access to justice in transboundary cases, Professor Jonas Ebbesson of the University of Stockholm stressed the applicability of the Convention in transboundary contexts. He described the potential legal consequences of the non-discrimination principle embedded in article 3, paragraph 9, of the Convention, and demonstrated how this principle had developed in international environmental law and how it had been applied in practice. He then clarified the legal consequences of non-discrimination in cases concerning access to justice in light of the minimum requirements set out in article 9, e.g. with regard to standing, remedies and due process. Mr. Ebbesson ended by emphasizing that while the Convention required a clear and transparent legal framework also for transboundary cases, even in the absence of such legislation the courts had an important role in ensuring due application in transboundary disputes. It was important to realize the broader scope of concerns for courts in a global society, not least with respect to environmental matters.
9. The plenary discussed some of the issues raised in these presentations. While NGOs often lacked the funds to file a claim, usually business corporations could easily afford litigation. This inequality, whereby access to justice remained often a question of financial ability to sue, had to be addressed to ensure fair and equal proceedings.
10. The importance of persisting with litigation, even if the success rate remained very low, was noted by some participants, since bringing cases before courts was one of the ways of raising the issue of accountability and public awareness, increasing experience, and developing good practice useful for future cases.
11. Some participants noted that whereas in transboundary civil law cases the claimant might have the choice of going to the court of the country where the damage had taken place, administrative cases could only be brought before the courts of the country in which the administrative act or omission in question had occurred. The concept of the European Union (EU), however, was seen by some as a reason to reassess this territorial approach to court jurisdiction within the EU even in administrative cases.
12. It was emphasized that the numerous obstacles identified could not be eliminated by only one group of stakeholders but required the combined efforts of the judiciary and other legal professions as well as the relevant ministries and the parliament.
13. It was also stressed that when assessing obstacles arising in respect of access to justice, such as standing for NGOs, the Convention itself should be used as a basis of the judicial assessment alongside the national legislation. In this regard, the importance of clear definitions of legal terms to be transposed into national laws was particularly stressed.
14. Professor Svitlana Kravchenko of the University of Oregon reported on the main challenges identified by experts in the Eastern Europe, Cacasus and Central Asia (EECCA) region in response to a questionnaire she had developed, which included lack of judicial independence, lack of judges’ awareness, the limited number of licensed public interest lawyers, low numbers of court cases, the chilling effect of SLAPP suits, financial barriers, and narrow standing for NGOs. She put forward several suggestions on how to overcome these obstacles, including reform of the judicial system; fighting corruption in the judiciary; providing financial support to public interest environmental law NGOs as key triggers of cases in domestic courts and the Convention Compliance Committee; raising awareness of environmental law among judges through continuous judicial training, including within the Task Force; and development of training materials focusing on the judiciary and the access to justice pillar of the Convention.
15. Dr. Csaba Kiss of the Environmental Management and Law Association from Hungary presented three independent multi-country assessments on access to justice focusing on the EU and Eastern Europe, undertaken respectively by the Access Initiative (TAI), Justice and Environment (J&E), and the European Environmental Bureau (EEB). The studies demonstrated that while in most countries the implementing legislation was largely in place, issues such as narrow standing, problems with injunctive relief, difficulty with appeals against screening decisions in environmental impact assessment (EIA) procedures, lack of legal requirements to build judicial capacity, and weak enforcement of court decisions continued to pose problems and limit access to justice. Recommendations included the promotion of judicial independence and awareness of environmental law among the judiciary, specialized environmental courts, State subsidies to address financial barriers to access to justice, clarification with regard to direct applicability of the Convention in the national courts, broad interpretation of standing for the public concerned, effective appeal, and screening procedures and guidance from the EC regarding access to justice problems in the EU Member States. The study carried out by EEB also concluded that adoption of an access to justice Directive in the EU would be beneficial overall.
16. The discussion in plenary noted that there had been overall progress with regard to access to justice, albeit slow. However, several NGO participants reported on measures taken in their own countries which had recently narrowed access to justice for NGOs. The plenary addressed the issue of judicial independence and particular difficulties that judges in some countries faced in this regard when reviewing decisions of the executive branch. The idea of an international environmental court was mentioned in this connection. The participants also mentioned that while an independent judiciary was a main step towards effective access to justice, this process would take time and thus had to be accompanied by a parallel process of solving access obstacles with the involvement of other stakeholders. The key role of ministries of justice as well as other legal professionals was also noted.
17. Many participants considered judicial training on international law, including on the Convention (and in EU Member States, the relevant EC directives), as a precondition for effective access to justice. In non-EU countries, clear and consistent transposition of the Convention’s requirements through implementing legislation was necessary.
18. The Honourable Luc Lavrysen, Justice of the Constitutional Court of Belgium, and the Honourable Vera Macinskaia, Justice of the Supreme Court of Moldova, then spoke on the issue of how the judiciary could further the implementation of the third pillar from EU and EECCA regional perspectives respectively.
19. Justice Lavrysen emphasized that the dissemination of adequate information to all relevant legal stakeholders should be a top priority. This could be done through national environmental handbooks and journals which formed the basic reference material for most of the legal profession. Second, the Convention should be an important item in training activities for judges and other judicial officers. Constitutional courts in particular could play an important role in the enforcement of the Convention. They were generally in a position to combine provisions of their national constitution with relevant provisions of international treaties and check not only the constitutionality of federal or regional acts of parliament, but also their conformity with international provisions, such as those of the Convention. He also underlined that administrative courts could easily reinterpret the existing national provisions on standing in conformity with article 9, paragraphs 2, 3 and 4, of the Convention.
20. Justice Macinskaia presented recent developments in the legislation of Moldova, in particular with regard to legislation on access to information, which had generated considerable jurisprudence on the matter. She also pointed out the special role that the judiciary played in applying the law as such, in particular in the light of its independent status. High-level courts, such as Supreme Courts, played a special role in the EECCA region by analysing jurisprudence and providing guidance to the lower courts on specific issues. She noted that specialization of judges in particular fields of law, e.g. environmental law, through, inter alia, creation of specialized courts or court chambers could go a long way towards solving the problem of “overload”, and in turn the matter of timing. Justice Macinskaia highlighted the importance of capacity-building for the judiciary, in particular through exchange of experience among judges, and pointed to the recent regional judicial workshop on access to justice as a positive example of such efforts.
21. Ms. Iryna Voytyuk, President of the Academy of Justice of Ukraine, described the role which JTIs could play in promoting effective access to justice. Most JTIs operate as independent public or private law bodies, with only a few being part of the ministries of justice or the Supreme Court. Speaking on behalf of the JTIs from Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine, she pointed out that the JTIs were in a unique position to reach not only judges at all levels but also court officials and other legal professionals. The JTIs relied on high-level judges, academics and international experts to deliver trainings at the national as well as local levels. In this regard, Ms. Voytyuk mentioned the Lisbon Network, a European information exchange network between persons and bodies in charge of the training of judges and public prosecutors. She concluded by stating that training on the Convention would raise awareness, promote the connection between the judges and environmental protection, and also promote the use of the Convention in jurisprudence.
22. Judge William Birtles, Resident Judge at the Mayor’s and City of London Court, United Kingdom, presented a paper on the work of the European Union Forum of Judges for the Environment (EUFJE) whose purposes are to: (a) share experiences of judicial training in environmental law; (b) foster knowledge of environmental law among judges; (c) share experiences of environmental law; and (d) contribute to a better implementation and enforcement of international, European and national environmental law. EUFJE has held several conferences on various issues of international environmental law5 and has made a number of recommendations on EU environmental law to the European Parliament and the European Commission, which have been accepted. Finally, EUFJE members participated in the Access to Justice Regional Workshop for High Level Judiciary (Eastern Europe and South Caucasus Region) in June 2007 ( Kiev). Judge Birtles concluded by suggesting the establishment of one or more similar judicial associations outside the EU region.
23. In the ensuing plenary discussion, it was noted that the establishment of judicial networks and associations in other regions would require funding which might have to come from outside sources, at least initially. In this regard, governmental sources, EU funding and funding from private foundations could be explored.
24. The issue of judicial discretion in deciding on matters such as costs, including bonds, was discussed. However, the level of such discretion differed from one national system to another.
25. With regard to the use of trainers and presenters for capacity-building activities for the judiciary and legal professionals, the possibility of relying on specialised bar associations, such as the British bar associations specializing in planning and environmental law, was mentioned.
26. Based on discussions in the mini-conference, its Chairpersons presented some general conclusions and recommendations in their personal capacities. Noting the overall importance of the Convention in the development of both national and international environmental law, they emphasized the immediate importance of the tasks undertaken by the Task Force on Access to Justice. In this regard, they noted that involvement of high-level judges in the work of the Task Force, including through capacity-building activities, had proven particularly useful. They also suggested that involvement of professional associations of judges, attorneys and other legal professionals be considered for future activities.
5 Such as “The Prevention and Remedying of Environmental Damage”, “EU Waste Law” and “The Impact of Natura 2000 on Environmental Licensing”, with the next annual conference being held in December 2007 on the Enforcement of Environmental Criminal Law.
27. The Chairpersons also put forward several suggestions concerning future work, including the establishment of a working group on access to justice. They noted that the upcoming tenth anniversary of the Convention was not only an important occasion for celebrations, but also provided a unique opportunity to assess successes, achievements and difficulties in the implementation process, using the information in the national implementation reports to be submitted to the third meeting of the Parties. They suggested that within the framework of the Convention, an overall harmonization of norms and practices was advisable across the region to tackle common obstacles to access to justice such as costs, standing and timing. They also noted that judicial training programmes on environmental law in general and access to justice in particular could be developed in a harmonized way across the region. They pointed out that the implementation process could not be expected to change over night and that the Convention differed from other environmental conventions because it went to the heart of the relationship between the administration and citizens, touching touched upon legal systems, administrative
Part Two REGULAR BUSINESS OF THE TASK FORCE
The Task Force meeting provided an opportunity to review the outcome of the regional workshop on access to justice involving senior members of the judiciary from six countries of Eastern Europe and South Caucasus (Kiev, 4-5 June 2007) and to consider plans for further such workshops as well as other awareness-raising and capacity building activities. The Task Force had also been asked by the Working Group of the Parties to discuss options for future work on access to justice at the forthcoming meeting. The mini-conference provided input to and inspiration for that discussion.
The meeting began with a series of presentations under the heading
RELEVANT DEVELOPMENTS
28. Michael Ewing presented the 42 new “Access to Justice Indicators” as part of the TAI analysis tool which is used to assess national implementation of Principle 10 and is available as a Web based tool at www.accessinitiative.org. An analysis of 65 access to justice case studies in 16 countries was compared with a similar analysis of 9 studies in Ireland.6
6 See http://www.environmentaldemocracy.ie.
7 See project web-link for the previous capacity building activities: www.rec.org/REC/Programs/PublicParticipation/Improving_practices/default.html
29. The REC informed the Task Force of the outcomes of the project “Improving the Practices of Public Participation: Next Steps in Implementing the Aarhus Convention in South-Eastern Europe (SEE)” funded by the Netherlands, resulting among other things in assessments of access to justice in Albania and Montenegro, the translation of the Handbook on Access to Justice, and a regional capacity-building workshop with a day on access to justice for the judiciary, legal professionals, ministry officials and NGOs. In an ongoing project funded by Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency, assessments had been prepared on the development of civil society including the use of access to justice opportunities, including under the Convention, and relevant trainings for NGOs.7
30. A representative of France reported on an environmental initiative launched by the President of the Republic in which six groups consisting of various stakeholders (representatives of the State, local bodies, employers, employees and environmental NGOs) were working on specifically defined and identified environmental subjects. The results of the initiative would be published online and were expected to lead to a new environmental development plan in France at the end of October, aiming at carrying out about 15 concrete and assessed measures. Second, consideration would be given to specializing the judicial system with regard to environmental issues as part of a national reform. Third, a conference on the Convention, focusing in particular on its third pillar, would be held in May 2008 by the National Judiciary School. It was planned to invite a number of European and non-European judges. Further details would be available soon.
31. The representative of UNITAR reported on a series of pilot projects on national profiles undertaken in three countries (Kyrgyzstan, Serbia and Tajikistan) together with UNECE, a part of which covered the third pillar of the Convention. She concluded that there was a lack of effective enforcement mechanisms as well as insufficient deterring fines for polluters in the pilot countries.
32. A representative of Germany reported that in that country, the implementation process for the Convention had been finalized since the previous meeting, paving the way for ratification. In December 2006, two new Acts, one on participation in administrative decision-making on environmental matters and the other on access to justice, both implementing the Convention and Directive 2003/35/EC, had come into force.
33. The Citizen and Democracy Association (Slovakia) reported that recent developments regarding access to justice in Slovakia had been negative. An act on promotion of highway construction that abolished the right of environmental NGOs to have access to court had come into effect. The government, at the same time as proposing the ratification of the Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) amendment to the Convention, had also proposed an amendment to the GMO Act abolishing the right of NGOs to have access to court regarding GMO decision-making procedures and weakening existing participation rights. Other laws abolishing a right of access to court for NGOs with respect to decision-making procedures subject to EIA and other procedures having an important impact on the environment had been passed in September 2007.
34. The Environmental Justice Association had prepared two publications, “Nest of Justice” (www.participate.org) and “Access to justice in Spain under the Aarhus Convention” (www.elaw.org/assets/pdf/es.a2j.spain.2007.pdf). A “Guide on Access to Environmental Justice” and an executive summary of the guide would be published in September 2007 at the General Council of Spanish Advocates magazine “Abogados”, with 140,000 copies distributed among Spanish lawyers, legal institutions and administration departments. Another publication under preparation with the support of the Biodoversity Foundation, “Environmental Democracy and Access to Justice: the application of the Aarhus Convention in Spain”, would attempt to assess the application of article 9 of the Convention in Spain.
35. WWF UK referred to a report published by Liberty and the Civil Liberties Trust in 2006 entitled Litigating the Public Interest (www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk), which discussed the contribution that Protective Costs Orders can make to public interest law, with specific reference to article 9 of the Convention and possible negative compliance effects caused by the United Kingdom costs rules. Arising from that, a separate Working Group under the chairmanship of Sir Jeremy Sullivan was presently looking at the issue of prohibitive costs and the costs rules in the context of the Convention. The WWF-UK representative pointed out that the group comprised the Environment Agency, Legal Services Commission, academics, practising lawyers and NGOs, with both the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Ministry of Justice declining an invitation to join the group. A report covering issues such as protective costs orders, public funding and remedies was expected to be published in 2008.
36. The representative from Armenia reported that since the last Task Force meeting there had been increased activities by NGOs and the Ministries of Justice and Environment in Armenia. A number of judicial trainings had been conducted, with further training activities and
ECE/MP.PP/WG.1/2007/L.10 Page 12
the improvement of legislation and lobbying being planned. However, issues such as standing and costs continued to present obstacles to effective access to justice, in particular for NGOs.
37. The representative from Belarus reported that the country’s system had proven to be fairly effective in ensuring the rights of citizens. A directive adopted in December 2006 set out principles for the functioning of the administration. A range of other activities to ensure effective access to justice, including a new draft law and judicial training courses, had been undertaken. However, she also acknowledged the issue of costs being a key obstacle to access to justice.
38. The representative of the Czech Republic informed the Task Force that in that country 63 cases of petitions had been lodged in courts against decisions made in environmental matters in 2005, 123 in 2006, and 96 in first half of 2007. This was a sign of effective access to justice. She also mentioned the decisions of the supreme administrative court, which were published in Czech only, as well as environmental law trainings for judges conducted by the national judicial training centre.
39. The Chairperson reported on an initiative from the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) to develop guidelines on access to information, public participation and access to justice in environmental matters. The initiative was in the initial stage.
40. The Ecological Society Green Salvation (Kazakhstan) stated that there was a stagnation of access to justice in Kazakhstan and pointed out that assistance from the Task Force members could be useful in addressing the failure to act by the public authorities and the courts with regard to a number of polluting projects.
41. What followed was a report and discussion on the workshop for the high-level judiciary held in Kiev. This is not too relevant to Ireland. 59. The representative of WWF-UK asked if there were any plans for similar training activities in Western Europe. The Chairperson referred this question to the discussion on future work, but mentioned that the mandate given to the Task Force required prioritization of countries with economies in transition.
42. The gathering of materials relating to Article 9 of the convention was again highlighted, but the lack of response from the Parties made for a poor quality report, and the request for further cooperation in pulling together the materials that would enable a comprehensive analysis.
Considering the preliminary results from the analysis and the needs articulated by members of the Task Force as well as by the representatives of the high-level judiciary and the JTIs, the Task Force preliminarily identified that the development of the following materials would be a priority, subject to review in light of the additional materials that would be sent to the secretariat pursuant to the invitation in the above paragraph:
(a) A compilation of examples of good practices adopted and/or undertaken with a view to furthering effective access to justice, taking full account of existing materials and building on the work done in the current and previous Task Forces on Access to Justice.8
(b) Training material targeting members of judiciaries and other relevant legal professionals, aiming at increasing their awareness of the Convention and, where existing, relevant provisions implementing the Convention in national law, and enabling them to adequately take the Convention/such provisions into consideration in a way that promotes the effective implementation of article 9 of the Convention, taking full account of existing relevant training material such as the Judicial Training Modules on Environmental Law developed by UNEP.
43. The Task Force, subject to the review mentioned above, consequently invited the Chairperson, the Vice-Chairperson and the secretariat to develop a proposal outlining the possible contents of the above materials, as well as the procedure/modality for producing them, in consultation with interested members of the Task Force, and to circulate the proposals electronically to the full Task Force for consultation. Some participants felt that the Working Group should also be consulted over the proposal.
ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION
44. The REC presented further information about the outcomes of the REC-OGUT joint project and in particular the workshop held in Budapest on 21-22 January 2007 on “Cooperative decision-making and conflict management in planning and environment” funded by the Austria, Finland, Germany and the Commission Internationale pour la Protection des Alpes. The workshop brought together practitioners, planners, developers, mediators, civil servants and NGOs to learn about successful mediation cases, exchange experiences, create a network of persons and institutions involved in environmental conflict management/mediation and establish links among existing networks. In addition to giving a comprehensive overview of the specific features and conditions of conflict resolution and mediation in Western Europe and Central and Eastern Europe, the workshop included training to develop the practical skills of mediators, including the study of case examples related to public participation and access to justice, which had been conducted upon the failure of or in parallel with administrative or judicial procedures.9
45. Germany drew the attention of the Task Force members to two projects within the EU Network for the Implementation and Enforcement of Environmental Law (IMPEL), which had been carried out since 2004 concerning informal resolution of environmental conflicts by neighbourhood dialogue and the development of a toolkit for the initiation and support of specific types of voluntary neighbourhood dialogue in environmental matters.10
9 For project website, see www.rec.org/REC/Programs/PublicParticipation/mediation/deafault.html
10 Project website and final report: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/impel/workgroups.htm#3, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/impel/pdf/informal_dialogue04_05.pdf
.
