IED Evaluation 1

ClientEarth identifies systemic failures in the implementation of the IED's 'Aarhus rights' across the EU. It argues that the IED's wording is too narrow to comply with the Aarhus Convention, particularly regarding public participation during permit updates. National implementation is further hindered by limited online information, high litigation costs in the UK, and a tendency for judges in Bulgaria and the UK to defer to regulators due to the technical complexity of the IED. Case studies from Bulgaria, Spain, and the UK illustrate these deficits, including the withholding of baseline reports in Spain and the lack of electronic access to permit applications in Bulgaria.

• The IED's requirements for public participation are narrower than those of the Aarhus Convention, failing to expressly require participation for all permit updates, such as those triggered by new BAT conclusions under Article 21(3)(a) or operational safety requirements under Article 21(5)(b).
• Article 25 of the IED is ambiguously drafted, making it difficult for the public and NGOs to challenge 'omissions' by authorities, such as failures to take enforcement action against permit violations.
• In Bulgaria, the Executive Environmental Agency (EEA) creates barriers to public participation by requiring manual website checks for notices and delaying electronic access to documents, sometimes providing them only at the end of the 30-day consultation period.
• Bulgarian courts often fail to engage with the technical requirements of the IED, with judges refusing to adjudicate on technical contradictions in permit applications or misunderstanding aggregation rules under Article 29.
• In Spain, regional authorities frequently fail to provide requested environmental information within legal deadlines, and the lack of a centralized national website for IED permits makes information difficult for the general public to locate.
• The UK system relies on formal information requests rather than public databases, which leads to significant delays that can render the information useless for judicial reviews, as seen in the Humber Oil Refinery case.
• High litigation costs in the UK, including potential 'adverse costs' of up to GBP 10,000 for NGOs, act as a major deterrent to holding environmental authorities accountable.

APA

ClientEarth (2019). IED Evaluation 1. https://www.clientearth.org/media/31bipjk3/ied-fitness-check-response-aarhus-issues-ce-en.pdf

Chicago

ClientEarth. IED Evaluation 1. 2019. https://www.clientearth.org/media/31bipjk3/ied-fitness-check-response-aarhus-issues-ce-en.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite press release |author=ClientEarth |title=IED Evaluation 1 |date=13 September 2019 |url=https://www.clientearth.org/media/31bipjk3/ied-fitness-check-response-aarhus-issues-ce-en.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@misc{clientearth2019ied, author = {{ClientEarth}}, title = {{IED Evaluation 1}}, publisher = {ClientEarth}, year = {2019}, month = sep, url = {https://www.clientearth.org/media/31bipjk3/ied-fitness-check-response-aarhus-issues-ce-en.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }