Advancing Sustainable Marine Governance in the Mediterranean: the Role of the Aarhus Convention

I. Introduction

Despite being a major biodiversity hotspot, the Mediterranean region faces significant pressures. Climate change impacts, such as sea-level rise, ocean warming and acidification, and coastal flooding, are projected to intensify.¹ Marine ecosystems are increasingly exposed to pollution, especially from land-based sources, including agricultural runoff, plastic waste, and industrial discharges.² Many Mediterranean species are already rare or threatened.³ Recently, expanding on-shore and offshore energy exploration and infrastructure development have added further strain on the region’s fragile marine ecosystem.

In this context, the Mediterranean Strategy for Sustainable Development 2026–2035 (MSSD) was adopted at the 24th Meeting of the Parties to the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment and the Coastal Region of the Mediterranean (Barcelona Convention) and its Protocols in December 2025.⁴ Building on the previous 2016–2025 strategy, the MSSD seeks to secure a sustainable future for the Mediterranean region consistent with the Sustainable Development Goals.⁵ Guided by the vision of a “prosperous and peaceful Mediterranean region in which people enjoy a high quality of life, and where sustainable development takes place within the carrying capacity of healthy ecosystems”, the MSSD is structured around six objectives. Objective 6 focuses on improving governance at all levels, and enhancing cooperation and partnerships in support of resilience and sustainable development.⁶ One of its strategic directions aims to promote “the engagement of civil society, scientists, youth and women, financial institutions, the private sector, local communities, and other stakeholders in governance processes at all levels, in order to secure inclusive whole of society processes and integrity in decision-making”.⁷ Thus, participatory governance in achieving sustainable development is central to the MSSD, thereby reinforcing the role of the Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (Aarhus Convention) in the Mediterranean region. Its relevance is further reflected in the inclusion of a target under Objective 6 that Mediterranean countries accede to the Aarhus Convention by 2035.⁸

II. The Aarhus Convention

The Aarhus Convention was adopted in 1998 and entered into force in 2001. As a global treaty, it is open to accession by any Member State of the United Nations. Currently, it has 48 Parties: 47 States from Europe, the Caucasus, Central Asia, and Africa;⁹ and the European Union as a regional economic integration organization. Ten coastal Mediterranean States, Parties to the Barcelona Convention – Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Lebanon, Libya, Monaco, Morocco, Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia and Türkiye – are not yet Parties to the Aarhus Convention. Initiatives such as the MSSD may encourage accession by these States.

The Aarhus Convention is structured around three pillars or procedural rights: access to environmental information, public participation in environmental decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters. These rights, which implement principle 10 of the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, contribute to the right of every person of present and future generations to live in an environment adequate for his or her health or well-being, as enshrined in article 1 of the Convention.

The Convention’s rights are granted to “the public” or “the public concerned”, depending on the provision at issue. The “public” is defined in article 2(4) of the Convention as “one or more natural or legal persons, and, in accordance with national legislation or practice, their associations, organizations, or groups”. The “public concerned”, defined in article 2(5), is a subset of “the public”, namely “the public affected or likely to be affected by, or having an interest in, the environmental decision-making”. Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) promoting environmental protection and meeting any requirements under national law are deemed to have an interest.

Importantly, a Party must guarantee the Convention’s rights not only to its own public or public concerned. This was confirmed by the Convention’s Compliance Committee, the body responsible for reviewing compliance with the provisions of the Convention. In its findings on communication ACCC/C/2013/91 (United Kingdom), concerning the right of the public in Germany to participate in the transboundary environmental impact assessment (EIA) procedure for the proposed construction of two new nuclear reactors at Hinkley Point, the Compliance Committee held that the definitions in article 2(4) and (5) “do not contain any wording that limits their scope only to the public in the Party concerned. Rather, … those definitions should be seen in the context of … article 3(9) of the Convention, which requires that the public shall have access to information, have the possibility to participate in decision-making and have access to justice in environmental matters without discrimination as to the citizenship, nationality or domicile”.¹⁰

The fact that the Convention’s procedural rights apply without discrimination as to citizenship, nationality or domicile, is particularly important in the Mediterranean region. The transboundary nature of environmental impacts and geographical proximity of Mediterranean States make the public’s ability to exercise the Convention’s rights beyond national borders essential.

While the Convention includes other important provisions, such as on the protection of environmental defenders¹¹ and the promotion of the Convention’s principles in international forums¹², the present article focuses on its three pillars and their relevance to marine-related matters.

(i) Access to environmental information

The Convention’s first pillar concerns access to environmental information. Article 2(3) defines “environmental information” as covering any form of information – written, visual, aural, and electronic. As the Compliance Committee has made clear, this definition “is broad”¹³ and “provides an indicative list of what would constitute environmental information”¹⁴. Amongst other things, it includes information on “the state of elements of the environment such as air and atmosphere, water, soil, land, landscape and natural sites, biological diversity and its components”;¹⁵ “factors … and activities or measures … affecting or likely to affect the elements of the environment …and cost-benefit and other economic analyses and assumptions used in environmental decision-making”;¹⁶ and “the state of human health and safety, conditions of human life, cultural sites and built structures…”.¹⁷ For example, the Committee has held that raw data on the state of the air and atmosphere,¹⁸ information concerning the imperative reasons of overriding public interest regarding a Natura 2000 site,¹⁹ mineral extraction permits, and production sharing agreements concerning the extraction of mineral resources²⁰ each constitute “environmental information”.

The right of access to environmental information comprises both a passive and an active component. The passive component, governed by article 4 of the Convention, obliges public authorities, upon request, to make environmental information available to the public, as soon as possible and, as a rule, no later than a month after the request was made.

The active component, governed by article 5 of the Convention, requires public authorities, inter alia, to possess and update environmental information that is relevant to their functions, and to proactively disseminate environmental information to the public in particular circumstances. This includes the disclosure of all information that could enable the public to take measures to prevent or mitigate harm in the event of an imminent threat to human health or the environment.²¹ Article 5 also requires Parties to ensure that environmental information progressively becomes available in electronic databases, which are easily accessible to the public.²² The Convention’s Protocol on Pollutant Release and Transfer Registers strengthens the implementation of this provision.²³

A communication currently pending before the Compliance Committee concerns the alleged failure by the Irish Environmental Protection Agency to proactively publish on its website information concerning dumping at sea permits, including notices of the commencement of such activities.²⁴ The Committee’s findings in this case may further clarify the application of the Convention’s provisions on access to environmental information in marine-related matters.

While public access to environmental information is the rule under the Convention, public authorities may withhold such information based on the exhaustive list of grounds set out in article 4(3) and (4). These grounds include, amongst others, where disclosure of the information would adversely affect international relations, national defence or public security. They also include where disclosure would adversely affect the confidentiality of commercial and industrial information, although in such cases information on emissions which is relevant for the protection of the environment must still be disclosed. When applying these exceptions, public authorities are required to interpret the grounds for refusal in a restrictive way, taking into account the public interest served by the disclosure and whether the information requested relates to emissions into the environment.

(ii) Public participation in environmental decision-making

The Convention’s second pillar sets out requirements for public participation in various types of environmental decision-making procedures.

Article 6 requires public participation for decisions on specific activities listed in annex I to the Convention. Some are relevant to the marine environment, including the extraction of petroleum and natural gas,²⁵ pipelines for the transport of gas, oil or chemicals,²⁶ trading ports, piers for loading and unloading connected to land and outside ports,²⁷ when the specified thresholds are met. Aside from annex I activities, article 6 of the Convention also applies with respect to any other activity, where public participation is provided for under an EIA procedure pursuant to national law,²⁸ and to activities that may have a significant effect on the environment, as determined by Parties.²⁹

Article 6 contains detailed requirements for public participation in such decision-making procedures. Such requirements include, amongst others, informing the public concerned early in the decision-making, and in an adequate, timely and effective manner;³⁰ reasonable timeframes for the different phases of the public participation procedure;³¹ and providing early public participation when all options are open.³² Article 6 also requires that all information relevant to the decision-making is made accessible,³³ the public is allowed to submit comments and opinions,³⁴ and that due account be taken of the outcome of public participation in the final decision.³⁵ When the decision is taken, the public must be informed of the decision and given access to its text, together with the reasons and considerations on which it is based.³⁶

Activities carried out in the marine environment, such as the construction of gas pipelines, often involve multiple States, and may have environmental impacts across national borders. Article 3(9) of the Convention ensures that the right to participate in decision-making on activities within the scope of article 6 is guaranteed not only to the public concerned in the country under whose jurisdiction a proposed activity is envisaged (i.e. the Party of origin), but also to the public, including NGOs, who are potentially affected or have an interest in the decision-making process in other States. As the Compliance Committee has held, “the ultimate responsibility for ensuring that the public participation procedure complies with the requirements of article 6 lies with the competent authorities of the Party of origin”.³⁷ Moreover, the public of the affected country must be given the opportunity to participate “on terms no less favorable” than the public in the Party of origin’s own territory.³⁸

Transboundary public participation may involve various challenges, including language and cultural barriers, as well as, in some cases, the absence of diplomatic relations between the States involved. To this end, the Maastricht Recommendations on Promoting Effective Public Participation in Decision-making in Environmental Matters³⁹ seek to provide practical guidance on facilitating public participation in the transboundary context.⁴⁰

Article 7 of the Convention requires public participation during the preparation of plans and programmes relating to the environment and, to the extent appropriate, obliges Parties to endeavour to provide opportunities for public participation in the preparation of policies relating to the environment.

Finally, article 8 of the Convention requires Parties to “strive to promote” effective public participation during the preparation by public authorities of “executive regulations and other generally applicable legally binding rules that may have a significant effect on the environment”. To this end, the Convention provides that the following steps should be taken: timeframes sufficient for effective public participation should be fixed; the draft rules should be published or otherwise publicly available; and the public should be given the opportunity to comment. The result of the public participation shall be taken into account as far as possible.⁴¹

(iii) Access to justice in environmental matters

Without access to justice to address violations of the public’s rights of access to environmental information and participation in environmental decision-making, the Convention’s first two pillars risk not being effectively enforced. The right of access to justice in environmental matters, the Convention’s third pillar, is therefore equally fundamental.

If a request by a member of the public for access to environmental information held by a public authority, for example a report on seawater quality, is wrongfully refused, article 9(1) of the Convention requires Parties to provide access to a review procedure, before a court or another independent body established by law, to challenge that refusal. The same applies if a request was ignored, inadequately answered, or otherwise not handled in accordance with article 4 of the Convention.

Similarly, if an NGO seeks to challenge the substantive and procedural legality of a decision, act or omission, subject to article 6 of the Convention – for example a decision permitting a gas pipeline with a diameter of more than 800mm and longer than 40km – Parties must guarantee access to a review procedure, before a court of law and/or another independent and impartial body established by law.

Moreover, article 9(3) of the Convention grants members of the public meeting the required criteria the right to challenge acts and omissions by private persons and public authorities which contravene provisions of national law relating to the environment. The Committee has held that article 9(3): “is not limited to violations of ‘environmental laws’, e.g. laws that explicitly include the term “environment” in their title or provisions. Rather, it covers any law that relates to the environment…which may relate in general to, or help to protect, or harm or otherwise impact on the environment.”⁴²

The Committee has, for instance, held that contraventions of laws relating to trade in wildlife, nature conservation, and animal protection would fall within the scope of article 9(3).⁴³ Furthermore, the Committee has clarified that, to the extent that national laws relating to the environment “apply to acts and omissions of a transboundary or extraterritorial character or effect, these acts and omissions are also subject to article 9(3) of the Convention”⁴⁴. This may be of particular relevance to the marine environment, since marine pollution resulting from acts or omissions of private entities or public authorities may extend far beyond the territorial sea of the State from which it originated.

Finally, article 9(4) of the Convention sets out minimum requirements for all review procedures governed by article 9(1)–(3). Such review procedures must provide adequate and effective remedies, including injunctive relief, and be fair, equitable and timely. In addition, these procedures must not be prohibitively expensive. Decisions, given or recorded in writing, must be publicly accessible.

III. Conclusion

Provisions on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice are also enshrined in the Barcelona Convention and its Protocols. For example, article 15 of the Barcelona Convention requires Parties to give to the public “appropriate access to information on the environmental state … on activities or measures adversely affecting or likely to affect it and on activities carried out or measures taken in accordance with the Convention and the Protocols” and “the opportunity to participate in decision-making processes relevant to the field of application of the Convention and the Protocols, as appropriate.” Its Protocol on Integrated Coastal Zone Management requires Parties to “ensure the appropriate involvement in the phases of the formulation and implementation of coastal and marine strategies, plans and programmes or projects, as well as the issuing of the various authorizations, of the various stakeholders …”⁴⁵ and that “a right of administrative or legal recourse should be available to any stakeholder challenging decisions, acts or omissions, subject to the participation provisions established by the Parties with respect to plans, programmes or projects concerning the coastal zone”.⁴⁶

While the Barcelona Convention and its Protocols enshrine these three procedural rights, the relevant provisions are framed in a general manner, without a detailed framework for implementing these rights in practice. The provisions of the Aarhus Convention described in this article, as further elaborated by the findings of its Compliance Committee, may play a complementary role to flesh out their content and provide guidance on their effective application in practice. Soft law instruments developed under the Aarhus Convention, such as the Maastricht Recommendations, offer further support in identifying best practices for their effective implementation.

At the same time, the recognition of these three procedural rights in the Barcelona Convention and its Protocols demonstrates that these two instruments are complementary and mutually supportive. This common normative basis may encourage Parties to the Barcelona Convention to accede to the Aarhus Convention. This accession process, driven by the MSSD, may help advance sustainable marine governance in the Mediterranean region.

ENDNOTES

1 Mediterranean Quality Status Report (2023), p. 15: https://www.unep.org/resources/annual-report/mediterranean-quality-status-report-2023-med-qsr

About the author

Anastasia Giadrossi

Associate Legal Officer, Secretariat of the Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (Aarhus Convention), United Nations Economic Commission for Europe