A/HRC/28/61 throughout the world, and reports that in 2014, it donated some $6.6 million to 770 environmental groups. H. Obligations relating to transboundary environmental harm 84. Many grave threats to the enjoyment of human rights are due to transboundary environmental harm. Although the precise nature of States’ human rights obligations in this respect is not always clear, there is a strong trend towards encouraging States to take actions to protect against transboundary harm to human rights caused by actions under their jurisdiction or control. Moreover, it is clear that States have an obligation of international cooperation with respect to human rights, which is of particular relevance to global environmental threats such as climate change (A/HRC/25/53, paras. 64, 67). 85. In light of the lack of complete clarity in human rights law with regard to transboundary environmental harm, a particularly important good practice is the legal recognition by a State of the rights of individuals who reside outside its territory but who may suffer environmental harm from actions arising within its territory. One example is transboundary environmental impact assessment (EIA) that allows for the participation of the affected public on both sides of the border. The chief international agreement is the Espoo Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context, which sets out detailed requirements for transboundary EIA. As of January 2015, it has 45 parties, including most States in Europe. The Convention provides that the party where a covered activity is located must give the public of the affected State an opportunity to participate in the EIA process that is equivalent to the opportunity provided to the public of the State of origin. 86. An innovative example of the consideration of transboundary effects beyond the requirements of the Espoo Convention is the effort by the Federated States of Micronesia to participate in the EIA of a proposed expansion of a coal-fired power plant in the Czech Republic, in order to draw attention to the effects of the plant on global climate change, which particularly threatens the inhabitants of Micronesia. In 2011, the Czech Ministry of the Environment issued an impact statement that recognized the Federated States of Micronesia as an “affected state”, and that required the owner of the plant to provide a compensation plan that would offset 5 million tons of carbon dioxide and thus mitigate the environmental impact of the project. 87. States have also taken creative steps to enable victims of transboundary environmental harm to have access to courts in the jurisdiction where the harm originates. An early example is the 1976 Nordic Environmental Protection Convention, which requires each of its parties (Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden) to provide reciprocal access to domestic legal remedies for transboundary environmental harm, allowing foreign residents to pursue whatever remedies in the country of origin that that country would provide to its own residents. An alternative basis for such reciprocal access is exemplified by a model statute adopted by a liaison committee of the Canadian and the U.S. conferences on uniform provincial and state laws. Similarly to the Nordic Convention, the model law provides that “a person who suffers, or is threatened with, injury to his person or property in a reciprocating jurisdiction caused by pollution originating, or that may originate, in this jurisdiction has the same rights to relief with respect to the injury or threatened injury . . . as if the injury or threatened injury occurred in this jurisdiction.” The model law has been enacted by seven U.S. states and four Canadian provinces. 88. Climate change may be the most challenging international environmental threat to human rights. A number of Governments provide examples of good practices in the use of human rights obligations relating to climate change. In 2012, the Scottish Parliament became the first legislative body in the world to explicitly recognize and support the 17