Ten years a chair—reflections on the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee

This piece is based on my experience as Chair and member of the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee. Here I highlight the quasi-judicial facets of the Committee and the essential elements of law, integrity, due process, dialogue, and trust that underpin its work. I also reflect on the increasing caseload of the Committee, and the Committee's relevance, outcome and impact, arguing that the Committee has delivered on promoting compliance by upholding integrity, ensuring due process and high quality in the reviews of non-compliance and follow-ups, and in engaging in dialogues with parties and non-state actors. My main concern, however, is that, due to the great number of cases, and the limited resources to manage its caseload, the Committee has not been able to live up to the message of the Convention of providing timely legal reviews. Importantly, despite its non-judicial character, the exercise of the Committee is governed by international law, and its findings of non-compliance, through the endorsements of the Meetings of the Parties, have significant legal effect for the interpretation of the Convention. The Committee, in short, is not as weak as I anticipated in 1998 when the Aarhus Convention was adopted.