Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-10-22-Speech-1-094"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011022.6.1-094"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Mr President, may I begin by saying that this proposal deals with the second pillar of this convention involving public participation in environmental decision-taking. In addition to this proposal on access to environmental information, there are other pieces of Community legislation which already incorporate the principle of the Aarhus Convention. The Commission will ensure that the Aarhus elements are built into all future proposals. Public participation has to become a fully integrated part of environmental decision-taking. To reach that objective, our proposals have to be easy to put into practice, so that they may be smoothly implemented in the different administrative systems of the Member States.
The question whether participation in decision-taking should aim at the public at large or the "public concerned" is a key point, and it has been addressed by a number of Members who have just spoken. In accordance with the Aarhus Convention, the Commission proposes to ensure that the public at large is fully informed about planned developments which might affect them, whilst giving the right to participate in the decision-taking process to those having an interest in or likely to be affected by the developments, that is, the "public concerned." Some of the proposed amendments, and indeed what has been said by some Members just now, seems to imply that by using the definition, "the public concerned", both the convention and the Commission are deliberately restricting the rights of citizens, but may I be permitted to point out that is certainly not the case. It is not correct. This proposal is aimed at extending the rights of citizens. There is no question of restricting those rights.
By defining the "public concerned", we are focusing the attention of the competent authorities on the need to take account of those citizens most directly affected. The definition will confirm both the right to express a view and the right to be heard. The definition of "public concerned" is sufficiently detailed to ensure that there is no doubt who should be involved. Therefore members of the public could argue that they had been unjustifiably excluded. That would be difficult with a more general definition of the public. The inclusion of NGOs within the definition of the "public concerned" will ensure that a more general public view may be taken into account.
On a more practical level, the definition of "public concerned" has been used without major problems in existing legislation – for example the environmental impact assessment directive – for a number years. There have been no problems raised as a result of people having been excluded by the use of the definition – at least no major problems. In short, this approach will give those affected by new developments the right to influence decisions which will not just affect their environment but which may also affect their economic and social conditions. For those reasons, the Commission, regrettably, cannot support the amendments seeking to replace the concept of the "public concerned".
Amendment No 26 seeks to extend considerably the scope of Article 1, so as to cover plans and programmes not only in the environmental field but also in other sectors. The Commission's view is that this would make the scope of the proposal less well-defined and also that the measures proposed would lead to legal confusion. There would in effect be a duplication of measures in different pieces of legislation each seeking to do the same thing, but in an inconsistent manner. In particular, for plans and programmes in other sectors that may have significant environmental effects, Directive 2001/42 on strategic environmental assessment already incorporates measures of particular relevance. The directive provides for environmental assessment of relevant plans and programmes in many integration sectors and envisages public participation fully in line with the Aarhus requirements.
Amendments Nos 6 and 12 aim to give effect to a best endeavour clause under the Aarhus Convention and are formulated in a non-binding way. Amendment No 9 introduces public participation concerning policies in its heading, but the text does not contain operational provisions in this respect. In formulating the proposal, the Commission's objective has been to incorporate the binding provisions of the Aarhus Convention. The Commission's view is that there would be no added value in taking up its soft-law provisions. Not only the Community but all Member States have signed the Aarhus Convention and so already have to take into account the soft-law provisions.
The Commission, regrettably, cannot accept Amendments Nos 7 and 11 which provide for access to justice concerning public participation in plans and programmes. The Aarhus Convention does not explicitly require this, neither does the directive on strategic environmental assessment of plans and programmes provide for access to justice. The Commission is however considering possible further legislative proposals in relation to the third Aarhus pillar on access to justice.
In conclusion, may I now confirm the Commission's position on the amendments. The Commission can accept Amendments Nos 15, 18, 25, 28 and 29. In addition, Amendments Nos 9, 13, 14, 23 and 27 can be accepted in part and Amendments Nos 4, 5, 10 and 17 in principle. The Commission cannot accept Amendments Nos 1, 16, 20, 21 and 22.
By way of conclusion, I should like to emphasise that it is in our common interest, which is the interest of the European citizen after all, to have this proposal enter into force swiftly. Only once the frameworks are established can public participation in decision-making become a fully integrated administrative practice."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples