President. – The next item is the oral question (B5-0556/2000) by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy to the Commission, on the poor implementation of certain environmental directives (PCB/PCT, habitats, nitrates).

  Jackson (PPE-DE). – Mr President, Parliament's Committee on the Environment is increasingly concerned that we are adopting European environmental legislation and then neglecting to implement it properly. Putting it bluntly, we believe that the Council of Ministers, the Commission and the European Parliament are complicit in a deception of the public. Opinion polls show that the majority of people support the idea that environmental issues are important and should be dealt with at European level.

We are adopting legislation that appears to fill this need. In fact, in all too many cases, environmental laws are ignored, targets are not met, reports are not sent in to the Commission on time and those countries which break the law go unpunished. The purpose of this debate is to highlight what is going wrong and to try and do something about it. The Committee on the Environment has put together three reports, we call them ‘insight reports’, basing ourselves on the model of the US Congress. We have found that the habitats directive is locked in controversy and law suits. The PCBs directive is characterised by the failure of Member States to supply the all-important inventories of the stocks they hold. The nitrates directive was probably flawed from the beginning and all but two countries, Denmark and Sweden of course, are now before the European Court of Justice because of their failure to implement it.

It is highly likely that these shortcomings are repeated throughout the canon of EU environmental law. What can be done about this? We hope firstly that in the environmental action programme, which the world is eagerly awaiting, the Commission will key in adequate resources for following up what has happened to legislation. It would be interesting to hear from the Commissioner roughly how many people in her Directorate are responsible for this as compared to those overseeing the introduction of new legislation.

There needs to be a much more honest debate secondly – nationally and at the European level – about the real possibility of achieving the environmental objectives set out in draft legislation. Too often, we suspect, Member States sign up to green laws because it looks good to do so, and opposing or moderating them is seen as politically insensitive. If, in fact, they cannot comply with what they have agreed to, such countries are doing Green causes harm. If the Germans and others, for example, now have trouble with the habitats directive, why did we not hear more about it when that directive was going through this Parliament? And did the German Government, in fact, vote against that directive originally?

Certainly the cost of clean-up laws must be taken into account when a law is adopted. A good example of the failure to do this is the urban waste water directive which the government of Brussels cannot afford to comply with. We suspect that the same thing will happen with the national emissions ceiling directive.

Thirdly, we want Member States to develop the infrastructures which will allow them, all of them, to carry out the monitoring work that must accompany the proper implementation of many of the EU directives we adopt here.

My colleagues and I were desperately disappointed that the Council felt it could not agree to our proposal to transform the environmental inspections recommendation into a directive. We were not demanding an EU inspectorate but simply that Member States should agree to bring their national inspectorates up to a common high standard. We will continue to pursue this idea in two years time when the issue should return to us.

Fourthly, we want much quicker action by the Commission to take Member States to court when they break EU law. Last week the Greek Government, which can ill afford to do so, paid the second instalment of a fine, now totalling over EUR 2 million for failure to comply with a judgment of the Court of Justice over the dumping of waste in Crete. This was thirteen years after the Commission received the first complaint about the dumping of that waste and no less than nineteen years after the directive concerned came into force.

It is absurd that a poor country should get itself into a situation of paying back money to Brussels, but equally absurd that the case should have taken so long.

Finally, let me say that we in Parliament are not daunted or diverted by the idea that the European Parliament should only be concerned with the adoption of legislation and not with its follow-up. Apparently the Environment Council was somewhat surprised and even disapproving that we had intruded into their territory and that our intention was to take the environmental inspections recommendation very seriously. MEPs, as we will all know, are on the receiving end of public criticism of poor implementation. The public tends to complain to us, not to the Environment Council. In the interests of the people of Europe and their environment, we will pursue this issue and we will not let go.

  Wallström, Commission. – Mr President, first of all I thank Mrs Jackson for her important question. I would remind all the Members of the European Parliament that implementation of European Community law covers both the transposition of directives into national law and their application to individual decisions. It also includes fulfilment of other obligations such as adopting programmes, making designations and monitoring.

The difficulties encountered by the Committee on the Environment in these three reports are indeed not limited to the three directives chosen but extend to all EC environmental directives. The Commission, and not least the Environment DG are aware of these difficulties and have for some time devoted efforts to improve their performance in this field and I can assure you that next week when the Commission discusses the Sixth Environmental Action Programme the whole implementation issue will be a very important point in that programme.

We have a number of tools at our disposal to improve implementation. We can, for example, disseminate information to give a more up-to-date picture of the state of play and I know that we have also forwarded some of these reports and annual surveys to Parliament and that we can do much more to ensure some media attention as well. We can develop tools to aid in the analysis and evaluation of progress in implementation. We can take legal measures to follow up implementation. Since 1997 specific initiatives have been pursued on a number of fronts including environmental liability, which of course will put pressure on the Member States to follow the existing rules and regulations; complaints and investigations procedures at national level where we have been involved in playing a consultancy role; access to justice, magistrates' training courses – also very important because this is also about education – and the publication of this annual survey on the implementation of environmental law.

We have also worked to create a clear link between implementation of the directives and Community cofunding which has proven to be very effective as well as ensuring a close relationship with the LIFE financial instrument, because when they see that the money is threatened if they do not comply with the regulations this will definitely put pressure on the Member States.

In May last year we had a first name and shame exercise, as we call it, on bathing water quality. A second exercise will take place in March this year and I will continue to follow this up so as to give us a scoreboard of how Member States are implementing Community legislation. Just last week the European Parliament and the Council, as Mrs Jackson said, reached an agreement on a recommendation which will establish minimum criteria for environmental inspections in the Member States. All these initiatives are intended to increase the level of knowledge of and compliance with European Community and environmental law. Of course, I acknowledge that there is still much to be done. We have to look for new ways to encourage the proper transposition and application of environmental legislation. For example, we need to work to improve the involvement of people at the local and regional level. Greater public awareness at these levels would lead to closer scrutiny and to public demand for effective implementation of environmental legislation. We must remain vigilant and active to ensure that the situation improves and I would like to confirm to the European Parliament my personal commitment and that of my services to ensuring the highest possible level of compliance with European Community environmental law.

To this end I will apply all means available, including the formal infringement procedures set out in Articles 226 and 228 of the European Community Treaty and 141 and 143 of the Euratom Treaty, which may lead to imposing economic penalties on non-complying Member States.

I would be more than happy to receive more resources and personnel from the European Parliament to work on this. Today we have about 45 to 50 staff working full or part-time on implementation, and, of course, we would need more than that. But I also think that it is for every civil servant here to actually look at the implementation part of introducing new legislation. I have been very clear from the beginning that I will put more emphasis on implementation. That needs the three I’s: information, integration and implementation, which should be the guidelines for the future. I hope that you will agree with me that we are starting to make progress on improving implementation and if both the Commission and the European Parliament continue their efforts to highlight the problem and act on it, further progress will surely be made during this parliamentary term.

  Moreira Da Silva (PPE-DE). – (PT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in the field of the environment and public health, the main problem with the European legislative process is not its inability to produce appropriate legislation. The problem lies, on the one hand, in the slowness with which directives are transposed into national law and, on the other, in shortcomings in their implementation. The environmental directives that we are now debating, on PCBs, nitrates and habitats, are examples of this very problem. There is little point in our having approved the directive on habitats and the creation of the “Nature 2000” network in order to protect sites of Community importance, when the Commission has been waiting since 1995 for all the Member States to present a definitive list of these sites, as well as their plans, rules and management mechanisms. The same problem applies to the directive on PCBs. And there is little point in our having stipulated the ban on PCBs and the decontamination of all equipment containing PCBs and PCTs with a view to protecting public health, if five years on, the overwhelming majority of Member States have not only failed to implement the directive, but have also failed to take the most simple action, which was to catalogue PCBs and to produce plans for decontamination.

We therefore have widespread non-compliance and for that reason, these directives have not produced the environmental results hoped for. We also have a situation, however, in which a degree of impunity reigns. The slowness of the Community's legal processes and the rare use of financial penalties against those Member States that are slow to comply have sent out two negative political messages. Those States that do comply feel that there is no incentive to continue and those that do not comply do not feel any pressure to change their ways.

It is therefore crucial for the Commission, as Guardian of the Treaties, to monitor the whole process of transposing and implementing Community law, publicising the commitment of all the Member States and guaranteeing that those States that do not comply will be penalised as an example.

  Sacconi (PSE). – (IT) Mr President, as Mrs Jackson has so clearly illustrated, the picture which emerges from the analysis of the implementation of the three directives in question gives genuine cause for concern. Despite the fact that the measures differ quite widely, it appears that the majority of Member States have fallen a long way behind schedule in implementing them practically. And, quite apart from the technical considerations specific to each of the three directives, this is a serious situation which must lead us to reflect on the reasons behind it.

I would like to highlight two aspects of the issue: on the one hand, in our countries, protection of the environment is hardly ever considered at the planning stage of the various sectorial policies but continues to be viewed as a series of actions to be carried out a posteriori in order to repair damage. On the other hand, precisely because of this retrospective approach, it is often felt that the directives are too costly to implement and that it would not serve any real purpose to do so.

The error lies precisely in, when all is said and done, considering environmental investments to be an obligation which has been imposed, an additional cost which serves no purpose. But the environment is our future and we cannot rely solely on volunteers or fear of a sentence from the Court of Justice to protect it. I, too, am of the opinion that, since the Fifth Environmental Action Programme adopted a principally sectorial approach to environmental policy, it may be that, when discussing the sixth, we ought to place greater emphasis on the involvement of social and economic players such as local authorities in the achievement of the objectives, so that the safeguarding of our environment increasingly becomes an element to be integrated into the overall planning stage.

In this context, it will be important, as we state in our motion for a resolution, to ensure extensive circulation of the best and worst results achieved by the Member States in the implementation of the environment directives. This could even take place via the Internet and would underline the difference in the commitment of each of the States in this matter and expose their behaviour to public opinion, which is almost always more effective than judgments of the Court of Justice. In order to facilitate the monitoring operation, but also comparison between the different situations, I feel that it is also even more important to continue to develop research on common indicators in the field of the environment.

The protection of the environment crosses national borders and is a field of Community action par excellence. It is also for this reason, and even more so in the light of the now imminent enlargement to countries of Central and Eastern Europe, that we must not accept that the decisions adopted by ourselves and the 15 governments should then be disregarded. The natural world is a common legacy, and our commitment to pursuing goals must serve as an example to the candidate countries, who are in the throes of remedying often extremely serious incidents of deterioration. If this situation is to improve, each of us, as a representative of Community, national or local institutions but also simply as a citizen, must do our part.

  Davies (ELDR). – Mr President, my assistant, Vikki Phillips, has just handed me a note which says that Denmark spends 15 times more than Greece in carrying out environmental inspections and making appropriate assessments. Well, if that is the case, then something is clearly very wrong, and I suspect it is not wrong with Denmark. I am very pleased to support most of what the Chairman of the Committee on the Environment has said, although I have some trepidation in doing so being conscious that the next ECJ fine may well be against the UK for its failure to comply with the bathing water directive, despite the fact that a great deal of money has been spent and effort made in recent years to reach such compliance.

I want to make it clear, though, that I do not believe that we should be using the failure of some Member States to achieve compliance with environmental legislation to justify weakening our ambitions or claiming that too much legislation is impractical. I am all for being realistic and for making sure that new legislation makes sense but the problems we face both throughout the European Union and across the world are too great for us to lower our sights. And I think some of the progress made by the United Kingdom in implementing the habitats directive over the past year demonstrates very clearly that it is very often not the fault of the legislation but the lack of political will which is to blame for the failure to deliver the goods we all wish to see.

I want strongly to support the idea of a scoreboard which the Commissioner mentioned and of gestures to name and shame those Member States which are failing to meet the expectations of MEPs, of the Commission and of the public. As a politician, the Commissioner knows very well the importance of making sure that that information is presented in a way which is easily digestible and understood by every journalist across the European Union and perhaps a few politicians as well.

So, let us call it the Commission's little red book, no, let us call it the Commission's big green book, albeit one with a few black spots on its pages. Let us name and shame at every opportunity and bring the public alongside us in ensuring that this environmental legislation is enforced and that Member States recognise their responsibilities.

  González Álvarez (GUE/NGL). – (ES) Mr President, Mrs Jackson well expressed the concern of the members of the Committee on the Environment, which in my case is heightened since I belong to the European Parliament’s Committee on Petitions. Forty per cent of the petitions submitted to this committee come from citizens concerned for the preservation of the environment. And they usually refer to the habitats directive, the environmental impact directive, the wild birds directive and the right to information directive, which together with those discussed here today on nitrates and PCBs are probably the ones most often infringed. Mr Goodwill's report shows that there are some Member States before the courts, others with proceedings against them, and only two Member States that are above suspicion. Mr Sjöstedt too, in his report, mentions those Member States that have repeatedly infringed the habitats directive.

The Committee on Petitions and I, myself, know that what often happens is that Member States either do not respond in time or, as we say in Spain, and I do not know if there is a good translation, they "make the partridge dizzy" [try to deceive one]. In addition, with the scant human resources of the Committee members, who are always having to answer the demands not only of the petitioners but also of the governments, it is very difficult to work, Commissioner.

It is essential that we respect the legislation that we ourselves draw up, and the proof that there is a lack of political will is that some Member States obey it and others break it. This can give companies a competitive edge.

In my opinion, there are three fundamental questions. First, something that has already been mentioned here: the deterrent use of European Funds; European Funds must not be given to projects that break Community law. Secondly, suitable penalties must be found; it is very hard (I am from a region that badly needs European subsidies), but even if it is very hard to freeze certain subsidies, if it is not done the Member States will not understand. Lastly, Mr President, the process must be speeded up. But I know that this lies in the hands of the courts, this lies in the hands of the governments, this lies in the hands of us all.

  Blokland (EDD). – (NL) Mr President, the aim of these directives is to protect the environment. This means that not only do the Member States transpose the directives into national legislation, they are also the ones who actually implement this national legislation. This also means that when monitoring implementation, it should not be the means to an end, but the end itself, which should be looked at.

Unfortunately, experience has shown that Member States often fail to implement European directives correctly. Consequently, campaigns, such as those designed to monitor compliance involving independent inspectorates, are essential. As far as the environmental inspections are concerned, the European Parliament has gone to great lengths to ensure that this is regulated effectively. However, negotiations have not led to the enactment of a binding directive, because the Council and Commission do not want that at this stage. Given this attitude of the Member States, I fear that in future, problems will arise at the implementation stage of other directives too. We need only call to mind the many warnings issued by the Commission to the Member States, which in some cases have led to infringement procedures. This can only get worse after enlargement, because the current Member States are setting the wrong example.

Where there are differences in interpretation, the Commission should put forward amendment proposals for workable rules. These amendments are not intended for additional or more far-reaching measures, but should help improve the workability of the current rules.

As far as the PCB [polychlorinated biphenol] directive is concerned, we should also turn our attention to the supplies. If these are to be maintained for much longer, it will be a rather long time before this directive makes itself felt.

  Trakatellis (PPE-DE). – (EL) Mr President, allow me to start by agreeing with everything Mrs Jackson and many of my fellow Members have said and to focus on a number of points. As everyone has pointed out, we have the legislation. The problem lies in incorporating and applying this legislation. Of course, the political will must be there but it depends mainly on the monitoring carried out by your office, Commissioner. If, for example, you receive repeated complaints, instead of dealing with them through time-consuming correspondence, you should take a persistent and decisive stand and make sure the legislation really is implemented. And if we have cause to go to the European Court, then let us do so and, if sanctions need to be imposed, then we shall do that too.

As Mrs Jackson has said, Greece is already paying EUR 20 000 a day and I trust that Greece will come to its senses and fall into line. I should particularly like to draw your attention to Directive 92/43 on Natura 2000 areas. We should not allow projects to go ahead in these areas with a light heart, because Article 6 of the directive says that only in the absence of alternative solutions should a project be carried out for imperative reasons of overriding public interest in Natura 2000 areas. And here again I would remind you that in an area of Greece, in the area of Fthiotida, where everyone is against bridging the Maliako Gulf which, it should be noted the Ministry of the Environment and Public Works itself included in the Natura 2000 areas, your office has received complaints about the Greek Government's intention to build this bridge, which will have a huge environmental impact, even though alternative solutions exist. I shall be monitoring – and I welcome the undertaking which you took in your intervention and I hope that it is a real undertaking – what happens in all the areas in Europe which are Natura 2000 areas including, of course, the Maliako Gulf, where there are plans to build a bridge which will wipe out an important habitat.

  Bowe (PSE). – Mr President, first of all I must thank the Commissioner and the Chairman and other colleagues for their words of wisdom. They are very positive and clear commitments to do something about this very serious problem.

But it is not just words we need, it is actions, it is deeds, and we cannot rely on Member States to do this alone. Even if representatives of the Council were here, which they do not appear to be, even if they were prepared to make statements, which they do not appear to be, we would not be able to leave them to do it on their own. We need some kind of watchdog to monitor and ensure the implementation of legislation. Sadly our own Environment Agency does not appear to be up to the job yet. We can but hope.

So what solutions do we have? What can Parliamentarians do? Well, these three reports before Parliament today are a start. They name and shame. They call for fines. They make proposals for further improvement. But, they also make a point which we must take on board here in Parliament. They say essentially that bad legislation should never have been put on the statute book. And that is a lesson that we have to take to heart. Perhaps we have to start to think about doing less but better. We have talked about doing it but seemingly not done so yet. When we put better legislation on the agenda in future, it has to be respected.

Because of the failure of Member States to put into place legislation, typically the PCBs and PCTs legislation, we now have the extremely serious problem of a long-term contamination of our food chain by a persistent toxic chemical. That toxic chemical is slowly but surely accumulating in the human food chain, reaching levels which are already beyond World Health Organisation levels in certain fatty substances, typically butter, and in some cases fatty fish, such as salmon. They are now creeping up the food chain to the point where our children are now starting to ingest amounts of these toxins that are beyond those that are recommended by the World Health Organisation. If we are not prepared to take serious action promptly in future we will see further problems of this kind affecting future generations. We owe it to those future generations to pursue this issue.

  Mulder (ELDR). – (NL) Mr President, I share the opinion of Mrs Jackson and many other speakers who say that once legislation has been laid down, it should be implemented. I also agree with Mrs Jackson and her statement regarding the nitrates directive: "that was flawed from the beginning". It was poor legislation. How is it possible, if you want to maintain 50 milligrams of nitrate in groundwater, to apply the same stocking density per hectare across the entire European Union, from Finland to Italy? Needless to say, the growth season in Finland is much shorter than in Italy, and so in Italy, as a general rule, more cattle units per hectare can be kept than in Finland. As far as I am concerned, every farmer can have as many cows as he chooses, as long as he does not exceed the 50 milligram limit.

Turning now to measurements, how it is possible that the Commission has not issued any clear guidelines on how measurements are to be taken, the depth levels of these measurements, the number of times a year they should be taken, and how seasonal influences can be taken into consideration? All these factors are still unknown and differ considerably from country to country and season to season. And if nitrate is measured, how is it determined that it originates from animal manure alone? A great number of farmers use artificial fertiliser; how is that measured? What is the impact of sewage leaks, for example? What is the impact of major rivers discharging into other countries?

Animal manure cannot be the only cause of nitrate pollution, and it is completely unreasonable to tell farmers to restrict its use if we do not know the other causes. I share the view of all the speakers who say that we must adopt sound environmental policy. I do not dispute the standard of 50 milligrams of nitrate in groundwater, but I do want clear guidelines on how it should be measured and how these measurements should be carried out.

  Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL). – (SV) Mr President, I have written the report on the follow-up to the habitats directive and have, in the meantime, obtained the clear impression that many Member States really did not appreciate what commitments they were taking on when they adopted the directive. They did not appreciate how far-reaching it really was. This is one of the most important explanations for why progress has been so slow. However, the fact that progress has been slow does not mean that nothing is happening. In actual fact, an incredible amount is happening in this area, albeit not as much as we should like. When the directive is called into question, it is important to remember that what is happening is important, even if progress is slow.

I also believe that this is an explanation for why insufficient resources have been invested in information and in dialogue with those directly affected by these protected areas, something which also creates partly unnecessary conflicts in many areas. I believe there is a lot to be learned from this.

Obviously, the Member States have prime responsibility, both financially and legally, but, for the EU’s part, it is important not only to legislate and to collect funds – good though these activities obviously are – but also to publicise the many good examples there are and to use its own financial resources to encourage sound development.

The situation we have is incredibly serious, mainly because of the extremely rapid impoverishment of biodiversity. Nor can we see a reversal of this trend. The work must therefore continue and, in the present situation, the directive ought not to be changed or reviewed.

  Oomen-Ruijten (PPE-DE). – (NL) Mr President, I very much welcome the fact that we as Parliament also fulfil our monitoring competences and that we take a look at directives which meet with a great deal of criticism in the Member States. Not only do they meet with a great deal of criticism in the Member States, they also cause enormous division in the European Parliament. I would like to comment on two directives today.

These are the habitats directive and the nitrates directive. What do these two directives have in common? The fact that the Member States have been granted far-reaching powers to designate nature reserves, species to be protected, and certainly as far as the nitrates directive is concerned, the sensitive areas. There are now an increasing number of complaints from members of the Dutch Lower Chamber of the States General who ask us what in God’s name we have been up to. However, it is not Europe which prescribed that the whole of the Netherlands should be designated a nitrate-sensitive area. It is the Netherlands itself which decided to do so. It is then up to us, with the kind help of a number of MEPs, to see how, by means of derogation requests, we can undo the nitrate legislation, for example, in order to reach the goal, this being a reduction in nitrate levels, in a decent fashion.

The same applies to the habitats directive. Today’s tragedy, a cross-border industrial site between Aachen and Maastricht, has been brought to a standstill for the umpteenth time because of two European hamsters. These hamsters were spirited away by a campaign group for the protection and preservation of this species who believed that, if they abducted the hamsters, they could get them to mate. But forced mating is something which does not work, even in the animal kingdom. Once again, for the umpteenth time, the Council of State in the Netherlands brought a cross-border industrial site to a standstill. However, having scrutinised the habitats directive and having correctly interpreted the regulation on areas where preservation is required, we see that this measure was unnecessary.

What should happen now, and that is why I support the report on the habitats directive, and most certainly the nitrates directive, is for the European Commission to make it quite clear – and perhaps lay down in writing in clear Dutch language – what is and is not possible. We agree on the principles, they are sound, but the way in which the Member States deal with them is disgraceful by any standard.

  Corbey (PSE). – (NL) Mr President, poor compliance with environmental legislation is a huge problem. As co-legislator, it is important for us to speak our minds, but we should not pass the blame to the Member States too readily. We must also consider the quality and nature of the legislation we produce. The Union is growing ever bigger and more diverse. We must therefore lay down rules which can thrive in the different national cultures. That is why I think we should prescribe less detail. We must be very precise in the results we want, but not in the way in which the results must be achieved. For that reason, I believe we should stand by the result, a maximum of 50 milligrams, in the nitrates directive. We do accept a certain degree of flexibility with regard to the method by which the result is achieved.

An example of sound legislation is the habitats directive. The environment is a common legacy; environmental protection a common task. It makes no sense to protect birds in one country if they are being shot down across the border in another country. The habitats directive prescribes a clear goal. The way in which it is to be achieved is quite flexible. The directive is not detailed, but provides a framework which allows latitude for weighing up local or regional interests, and that is exactly how we need to move forward. As long as the result – caring for the protected species and their habitats – remains paramount.

Needless to say, there are many conflicts in villages and provinces with regard to the directive’s application. There are instances of incorrect application. It would be useful and necessary to provide clear information, but I am taken aback by the large number of MEPs who have requested a review of the bird and habitats directive in order to work out in further detail certain concepts in the habitats directive. The significant implications of this would then be compensation and major public interest. The very strength of the habitats directive lies in its flexibility. The directive stands for a modern way of protecting the environment. It is not about putting up fences around the environment, but about dealing with the species and natural resources in a conscientious manner.

Accordingly, I regret that some MEPs are adding to the chaos by suggesting in an amendment that the existing infrastructure should disappear, or that major new projects are not viable.

  Schnellhardt (PPE-DE) . – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I was delighted to find this topic on the agenda today. I would like to thank Mrs Jackson for raising the question. Although you refer to three specific EU directives, I would point out that what we are talking about here is a widespread problem with the transposition of EU legislation in the Member States. If you start from the principle that directives and regulations are adopted by the Council and Parliament in the EU, then it is quite reasonable to assume that the Council – which does, after all, use these directives – will transpose them in the Member States accordingly.

But what do we see happening? Two camps are forming. On one side there is the European Union, which seeks to blame the Member States for shortcomings. On the other side, there are the Member States, which are more than willing to offload their problems onto the oh-so-distant Europe, forgetting in the process that they are part of Europe themselves, and the Commission is piggy-in-the-middle. Commissioner, you have gone to great lengths to try and ensure that these laws are transposed in the European Union in a purposeful manner. But it really is not that simple and, of course, we have criticised your methods sometimes. I can understand to an extent, why you took the line you did.

There are various reasons as to why countries have trouble transposing this legislation. In my opinion, one of the reasons in the case of the nitrates directive is the failure to observe scientific findings, because one thing is for sure, it is not possible to reduce nitrate levels as rapidly as we demand. Nature simply will not allow it. However, in the case of the habitats directive, Parliament highlighted the shortcomings quite clearly last year, namely that the directive was complicated and unclear in parts and so it cannot be transposed in the Member States. When we were in Toulouse, we saw how local people are trying to transpose it. But basically, they do not know what is going on. They do not know where the boundaries are, or how to apply them properly. These are shortcomings that must be reviewed as a matter of priority.

But it is also our responsibility to ensure that the directives are less utopian and far more realistic in nature. Mrs Jackson's question actually contains all the points we need to address and there is nothing more to add to it. Speedier sanctions and careful drafting of laws will enable us to solve this problem. However, I would just like to point out that something needs to change in the Member States too, because the Environment Ministers are, no doubt, sometimes too cowardly to promote the initiatives they adopt here, in their own countries, if this could lead to conflict.

  Lund (PSE). – (DA) Mr President, I should first of all like to thank Mrs Jackson and the rapporteurs for the three reports we are debating today. Effective implementation of the EU’s environment directives in the Member States is naturally of great significance in two ways: firstly, in terms of environmental protection – which is, of course, the whole purpose of the directives – but also in terms of our not causing confidence to be lost in EU legislative work through the Member States’ being able for a long time to get away with not implementing the legislation which they themselves have helped bring about in the Council of Ministers. That is why I think that the three reports concerning the Member States’ failure to implement EU legislation are important.

The Council has, of course, been rather irritated about the fact that Parliament is looking over its shoulders, but I think that the work on the reports has revealed how slack the majority of the Member States are about implementing EU legislation. They have also revealed how slow the Commission’s and the Court of Justice’s reactions are when it comes to inadequate implementation. We often, of course, hear fine speeches about grand European visions and the Europe of the future, sometimes from Members of this Parliament. We also hear this kind of thing from many governments, but it often, of course, disguises the fact that narrow national interests are being cultivated instead of the common interests we have worked for in the course of the legislative work. It is also interesting to note that those countries which are often regarded as rather reluctant and critical in relation to certain aspects of EU cooperation are in reality those countries which comply best with EU decisions. In all modesty, I am thinking, for example, of the Nordic countries. I was pleased to hear Mrs Wallström’s remarks on the reports. I am sure that Mrs Wallström has the will to ensure that the legislation is of a sufficiently high quality to be implemented and to ensure that it is effectively followed up. I think, at any rate, that Parliament ought to provide as much support as possible for this work.

  Schleicher (PPE-DE) . – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Mrs Jackson's question illustrates the fact that the best laws in the world are no use whatsoever unless they are applied correctly and, more importantly, properly controlled. For example, the Member States have not transposed the habitats directive into national legislation. The same applies to a great deal of other legislation. And this is legislation which we need for the future. The Commission is responsible for transposition and for checking what sort of on-site controls have been carried out. In doing so it, in turn, must rely on information supplied to it by the Member States. I get the impression that monitoring is no easy task and if the Commission is to perform this task it needs information and data and reports to be sent in.

The complaint was often voiced in the past that the Commission did not have enough staff and resources to evaluate the data sent in for control purposes. I should therefore like to ask the Commission if it now has sufficient resources. Mind you, Parliament cannot talk, because we are constantly calling for reports. I know that the Commission is very busy receiving and processing reports and that this sometimes ties up Commission capacities and resources unnecessarily.

In other words, we all have to think where we can make improvements. I think the Commission should react more quickly, both towards the Member States and in instituting the necessary proceedings before the ECJ and setting fines.

At the same time, I call on the Member States to honour their obligations to transpose and control legislation and report to the Commission properly.

I am the person responsible in our group for the water framework directive and the rapporteur for the groundwater action programme, which is still pending, and the nitrates directive is therefore a matter of particular concern to me. On Tuesday, i.e. tomorrow, we shall be voting on the Goodwill report, to which I have proposed a number of amendments. I should like to ask the House to accept these proposed amendments, because what we are trying to do here is to give the Member States more responsibility. I should therefore be grateful for your support.

Finally, I should like to mention one more point, namely the candidate countries. We require candidate countries to adopt European legislation. But when the Member States themselves fail to abide by it and the European Commission is unable to take decisive action, then everything starts to go pear-shaped. For this reason alone and, most importantly, in order to protect human health and the environment, all those responsible need to radically rethink the matter post-haste and these reports make that clear.

  Flemming (PPE-DE) . – (DE) Mr President, what a relief that no speaker so far has called for the environmental directives to be watered down. Mr Sjöstedt, it is nothing to with the poor Member States not knowing what they were letting themselves in for. And right now they know full well that they are simply and deliberately contravening European legislation. They are stalling for time and they know perfectly well that nothing will happen to them, because it takes so long for the Court to do anything. What we have here is the deliberate flouting of European legislation and neither Parliament nor the Council should stand for it.

Some members are saying that we should name and shame. I can name and shame myself because Austria is one of the countries which has failed to comply with the habitats directive, but I must also protest, Commissioner, because Austria has not been at all remiss as far as the PCB directive is concerned. We did everything here which needed to be done even before there was a European directive. We passed a Waste Law back in 1990 and an ordinance banning halogenated substances in 1993. We are being accused unfairly here.

As far as the nitrates directive is concerned, Austria has now rectified its shortcomings, but we know only too well that the Member States had terrible trouble transposing the nitrates directive. The main problem here was that, because of the extremely high density of livestock in many parts of the Union, keeping to within the limit of 170 kg of nitrogen per hectare of farmland caused immense difficulties with the production of farm manure in several countries.

Perhaps such a high density of livestock will be less of a problem in the future, because cows, those pained and tormented creatures, are fighting back. The form of BSE which currently confronts us may well be a sort of revenge on the part of these tormented animals.

We should take a lesson from nature and conduct ourselves properly and comply with the laws which we ourselves have passed.

  Doyle (PPE-DE). – Mr President, the drinking-water directive, waste-management directive, major accident hazards, sewage sludge, asbestos, wild birds, waste shipment, not to mention the habitats directive, the nitrates directive and the PCB directive. The list is long, the list of the failure of my own country to transpose EU environmental law. Despite warning letters, reasoned opinions, threats of legal action to the European Court of Justice, so it embarrassingly continues. We are second worst in terms of transposition and designation of sites under the habitats directive.

Sometimes, but rarely, there can be genuine reasons for delayed transposition of a directive and the nitrates directive has come in for particular mention in this regard here today.

But to fail to provide information requested by the Commission under Article 10 of the Treaty in a timely and proper manner is inexcusable. That is the first step: reply to the letters of the Commission. No government should be forgiven bad manners and inappropriate behaviour. That is one of Ireland's and, I suspect, many countries' cardinal sins in relation to the area we are discussing. Article 10 requires Member States to actively cooperate with the Commission in dealing with complaints, to clarify facts and to state official positions.

Only last weekend I read in the Irish media that the head of the Commission's Environment DG, Mr Curry, complained to Ireland's EU Ambassador, Mr Denis O'Leary, last autumn that the Irish authorities were not cooperating adequately with Brussels on environmental issues.

Commissioner Wallström wrote last March to the Irish Minister of the Environment, Mr Dempsey, suggesting that the large number of Irish environmental complaints currently being dealt with by the EU officials be dealt with in his department or by the Irish Ombudsman. No joy, no progress, perhaps even no response – I do not know. With 1% of the Community's population, to our shame we in Ireland have been generating 10% of the Commission's environmental complaints. Mr Curry had strong words for not only our Department of the Environment but also our Department of Finances policies, our Environmental Protection Agency, our Heritage Protection Agency and, indeed, our local authorities.

Sensitive and sensible implementation must be encouraged to ensure political and public cooperation and understanding of what we have to achieve. I often give the example – as I did at a committee meeting this morning – of the survival of the only cotton-weed colony in Ireland in the south-east corner of Wexford. This is on a local pilgrimage path. In its over-zealousness to protect the cotton-weed, the local council decided to ban the pilgrimage from the immediate area. It very quickly became apparent that the trampling of the pilgrims' feet and not divine intervention had, in fact, been essential to protect that particular ecosystem. Stronger and more vigorous species, better known colloquially as ‘weeds’ – even though they are all wild flowers – gained a foothold in the colony and began to choke off the cotton-weed once human intervention was gone. Changing the essential balance between human activity and our environment led to the loss of this precious ecosystem.

Finally, it must not be a case of the last person off the island turning the lights off. We have to live and earn a living in these places. Equally we cannot continue to mortgage our children's health and heritage.

  Wallström, Commission. – Mr President, I should like again to thank all the Members of the European Parliament for their statements. I could not agree more with most of what you have said, except for any accusation of complacency. May I remind you that, as of today, 45% of all the complaints are on environmental issues and cases – 700 complaints, 30% of the infringements – about 400 – are on environmental cases. So there is a heavy burden on us and we are trying to do our best but also look to the future. That is why I am saying that we also have to look out for new instruments and ways to do more.

Mr Sacconi's point was that we need the good examples of what economic gains can be made from complying with environmental legislation. We could do more on that. We could do more with the use of indicators because we have to measure. We have to be better at assessing the results of compliance with environmental legislation. We are most effective when we have a good and effective interplay between the institutions, while not denying the fact that Member States are responsible. They have to give us answers and provide us with information. We do not have the means to send people to all the Member States to check. We cannot do that unless you give me another 500 people.

What we have to do is modernise legislation. It has been said that we need less but better legislative proposals. I agree with that. The easiest way is the limit-value approach, to say 50 mgs of nitrates for example in drinking water. But this cannot apply in other far-reaching directives of a broader scope, such as the habitats directive. It is no coincidence that the habitats and nitrates directives are chosen as examples of bad compliance because they are very far-reaching. They are ambitious directives and in some cases it means the Member States need to review fully their agricultural practices. We know this from some of the Member States. This should not be taken as an excuse, but an explanation of why these directives are cited for lack of implementation.

I totally agree with Mr Sjöstedt that it is not because these directives are not good or ambitious enough. They are far-reaching and there are consequences for the Member States which they perhaps did not realise when the decisions were taken. We must not give in now, we have to carry on because we will finally start to see results. What we have done, which is very effective, is to establish the link between European funding and compliance with environment legislation. We have to draw on that.

We can do more on education and information. We have started activities like this. We use our experts to go to Member States or to carry out seminars to teach the Member States how to best implement it. We try to use all these available instruments to improve implementation. In an enlarged and more diverse Union, clear and legally binding targets, as well as education and methods for measuring, monitoring and calculating results, become more and more important. I hope for the European Parliament's support and backing in our further attempts to improve the implementation of our European Community environmental legislation.

  President. – I have received a motion for a resolution in accordance with Rule 42(5) of the Rules of Procedure.⁽¹⁾

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow, Wednesday, at 12 noon.