Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-03-30-Speech-2-275"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040330.11.2-275"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, the package of three acts now before us forms part of the package of measures for acquiring practical rules with regard to the principles agreed by the United Nations in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. I myself was Parliament’s rapporteur for the first two pillars of the Århus Convention, and am now the rapporteur with regard to the regulation on the application of all three pillars to Community institutions and bodies. I am also rapporteur for the Council decision on the ratification of the Århus Convention.
Moreover, we have to consider that there are very many kinds of NGOs, and we cannot be certain about the ultimate purpose of all of them. That is why simple criteria for defining a qualified entity will give protection to that special entitlement we are now bestowing on environmental organisations that have a serious purpose. I hope that the environmental organisations are able to see this. If on the other hand some organisations are too small on their own to meet even these simple criteria, that may in itself even justify, in terms of the objective, which is the protection of the environment, combining skills and resources and not working as needlessly scattered units, at least as far as using the opportunity of access to justice is concerned.
We should also bear in mind the nature of the minimum directive: Member States may if they so wish exclude some of the proposed criteria, but may not add to them. This gives credence to the notion that the directive will function within very different legal systems.
I have furthermore made the provisions clearer, allowing foreign organisations a non-discriminatory right to access to justice when it is a genuine matter of cross-border environmental impact. The Commission proposal was not absolutely clear on this point.
Now I will turn to the issue of ratification. The two Århus directives already adopted represent Parliament’s position very clearly. Parliament itself was able to make the provisions contained in them tougher compared to the Århus Convention. This is partly due to the at times intentionally vague and obscure wording of the Convention, which was simply meant to ensure the Convention would come into being in 1998. This tradition of international diplomacy cannot, however, be tolerated within the context of the precise formulation of Community legislation.
As rapporteur, I hope Parliament will show more ambition where the Community has authority, as the incorporation of an environmental convention in Community legislation is different from drafting directives based on conventions in other areas, such as banning landmines. While the latter is a static decision, the former should be thought of as a dynamic process. With environmental policy, the aim is to reverse, step by step, adverse global developments, and benefit from the experience gained.
Therefore, the implementation of an environmental convention should take shape in a way that can lead to improvements in a future revision of the convention. The EU cannot confine itself to the faithful duplication of internationally agreed minimum standards, but should rather use the entire margin realistically and aspire to lead the way. This succeeded with the two first pillars of the Convention.
The final sections of the Århus package under discussion seem to be going in the right direction and showing a sense of balance. As a result, ratification of the entire Århus Convention may finally start in the Community with no needless delay, provided the necessary Community legislation is adopted.
Let me first speak about the regulation. The European Parliament played a very active role in the first two implementing directives on the Århus Convention. The outcome as a result of conciliation represents Parliament’s position very clearly in both cases and meets the minimum requirements in the Århus Convention fully, even going beyond them. This is now satisfactorily reflected in the Commission proposal for the regulation.
The committee, upon my suggestion, tabled amendments to the regulation concerning exceptions regarding access to information and binding rules on public participation in particular. Furthermore, in order to harmonise the regulation with the Convention and the proposed Directive on access to justice, members of the public are given a legal standing where an issue directly concerns their interests or rights.
I am also proposing a clarification to the text concerning charging for the information supplied. Here a distinction should be made between, firstly, the three European institutions, the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, and secondly, between all the other Community bodies. The former three have already adopted a general rule for not making charges, and that must obviously not be altered where it concerns environmental information. The other bodies may make a reasonable charge where appropriate.
Furthermore, the amendments that have now been tabled are aimed at ensuring that there is adequate harmonisation between the regulation and the proposed Directive on access to justice.
Let me then move on to the directive. The Directive on access to justice is problematic in many ways. First of all, the various fears associated with it in the Member States give rise to needless opposition to the whole Århus Convention and the Community legislation that relates to it. I would think that this is also precisely why Ireland, as the country holding the presidency, is unwilling to include the package under discussion in its agenda during its presidential term.
The second problem is that this directive, which specifically relates to access to justice and the legal system, restricts the powers of the Union to a greater degree than the two earlier Århus directives. All this Parliament must take into consideration when taking its decision on the directive.
The outcome arrived at by the committee was reasonably good, and the amendments tabled by the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats are an attempt to ensure that the directive will actually adhere precisely to the provisions of the Århus Convention: no more, but no less. Given that the Århus Convention does not provide any clear basis for the text, a degree of discretion has had to be applied.
I would like to raise the matter of the definition of ‘qualified entity’. The general criteria agreed by the committee are too narrow in the view of many environmental organisations. I do not agree. What is required at the end of the day is simply normal procedures that accord with good practice on the part of organisations and recommending legal procedures that are in accordance with good practice, which is probably only reasonable considering the special role these organisations will now have in monitoring society’s conformity with the law."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples