REPORT on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive on providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment and amending Council directives 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC
(COM(2000) 839 – C5-0027/2001 – 2000/0331(COD))
9 October 2001 - ***I
Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy
Rapporteur: Eija-Riitta Anneli Korhola
PROCEDURAL PAGE
By letter of 18 January 2001 the Commission submitted to Parliament, pursuant to Article 251(2) and Article 175 of the EC Treaty, the proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive on providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment and amending Council directives 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC (COM(2000) 839 - 2000/0331 (COD)).
At the sitting of 31 January 2001 the President of Parliament announced that she had referred this proposal to the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy as the committee responsible and the Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs for its opinion (C5-0027/2001).
At the sitting of 15 March 2001 the President of Parliament announced that she had also referred the proposal to the Committee on Petitions for its opinion.
The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy had appointed Eija-Riitta Anneli Korhola rapporteur at its meeting of 12 March 2001.
The committee considered the Commission proposal and draft report at its meetings of 12 September and 9 October 2001.
At the last meeting it adopted the draft legislative resolution by 23 votes to 0, with 25 abstentions.
The following were present for the vote: Caroline F. Jackson, chairman; Guido Sacconi and Ria G.H.C. Oomen-Ruijten, vice-chairmen; Eija-Riitta Anneli Korhola, rapporteur; Per-Arne Arvidsson, María del Pilar Ayuso González, Jean-Louis Bernié, Hans Blokland, David Robert Bowe, John Bowis, Dorette Corbey, Chris Davies, Avril Doyle, Anne Ferreira, Marialiese Flemming, Karl-Heinz Florenz, Cristina García-Orcoyen Tormo, Laura González Álvarez, Robert Goodwill, Françoise Grossetête, Anneli Hulthén, Hedwig Keppelhoff-Wiechert (for Martin Callanan), Christa Klaß, Bernd Lange, Giorgio Lisi (for Cristina Gutiérrez Cortines), Minerva Melpomeni Malliori, Rosemarie Müller, Riitta Myller, Giuseppe Nisticò, Karl Erik Olsson, Marit Paulsen, Encarnación Redondo Jiménez (for Peter Liese), Frédérique Ries, Didier Rod (for Hiltrud Breyer), Dagmar Roth-Behrendt, Giacomo Santini, Karin Scheele, Ursula Schleicher (for Jorge Moreira da Silva), Horst Schnellhardt, Inger Schörling, Jonas Sjöstedt, Renate Sommer (for Emilia Franziska Müller), María Sornosa Martínez, Dirk Sterckx (for Jules Maaten), Nicole Thomas-Mauro, Antonios Trakatellis, Joaquim Vairinhos, Kathleen Van Brempt (for Torben Lund) and Phillip Whitehead.
The opinions of the Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs and the Committee on Petitions are attached.
The report was tabled on 9 october 2001.
The deadline for tabling amendments will be indicated in the draft agenda for the relevant part-session.
LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL
Proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive on providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment and amending Council directives 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC (COM(2000) 839 – C5‑0027/2001 – 2000/0331(COD))
The proposal is amended as follows:
| Text proposed by the Commission[1] | Amendments by Parliament |
| Amendment 1 Recital 1 | |
|
Community legislation in the field of the environment aims to contribute to preserving, protecting and improving the quality of the environment and protecting human health. |
Community legislation in the field of the environment aims to contribute to preserving, protecting and improving the quality of the environment and protecting individual and public health. |
Justification Self-explanatory. | |
| Amendment 2 Recital 2 | |
|
(2) Community environmental legislation includes provisions for public authorities and other bodies to take decisions which may have a significant effect on the environment as well as on personal health and well-being. |
(2) Community legislation, plans and programmes relating to the environment and to other fields of policy include provisions for public authorities and other bodies to take decisions which may have a significant effect on the environment as well as on individual and public health and well-being. |
Justification This amendment builds upon amendment 1 by the rapporteur. The directive should not solely relate to EU legislation, but also to any Community structural assistance programmes. | |
| Amendment 3 Recital 2a (new) | |
|
(2a) Article 6 of the Treaty establishing the European Community stipulates that environmental protection requirements must be integrated into the definition and implementation of all Community policies and activities. | |
Justification Reference to Article 6 of the Amsterdam Treaty (OJ C 340, 10.11.1997). | |
| Amendment 4 Recital 3 | |
|
Effective public participation in the taking of decisions enables the public to express, and the decision-maker to take account of, opinions and concerns which may be relevant to those decisions, thereby increasing the accountability and transparency of the decision-making process and contributing to public awareness of environmental issues. |
Effective public participation in the taking of decisions enables the public to express, and the decision-maker to take account of, opinions and concerns which may be relevant to those decisions, thereby increasing the accountability and transparency of the decision-making process and contributing to public support for the decisions taken. |
Justification Public participation, if properly organised and reflected in the actions of decision-makers, can contribute to the acceptance and the legitimacy of the decisions taken. | |
| Amendment 5 Recital 6 | |
|
(6) Among the objectives of the Convention is the desire to guarantee rights of public participation in certain kinds of environmental decision-making in order to contribute to the protection of the right to live in an environment which is adequate to personal health and well-being. |
(6) Among the objectives of the Convention is the desire to guarantee rights of public participation in decision-making which affects the environment in order to contribute to the protection of the right to live in an environment which is adequate to individual and public health and well-being. |
Justification The amendment implements the Aarhus Convention (inter alia Article 1) more precisely and makes it clear that the approach adopted in the directive is integrative. | |
| Amendment 6 Recital 8a (new) | |
|
(8a) Article 8 of the Aarhus Convention requires the Community and Member States to strive to promote public participation during the preparation of executive regulations and other generally applicable legally binding rules that may have a significant effect on the environment. | |
Justification Article 8 of the Aarhus Convention cannot be completely disregarded, as it expresses important basic principles underlying the Convention and covers decision-making which affects the environment in areas which Articles 6 and 7 of the Convention do not cover. The recital inserted by the amendment is linked to the amendment which inserts a corresponding new article. | |
| Amendment 7 Recital 9 | |
|
(9) Article 9(2) and (4) of the Aarhus Convention provides for access to judicial or other procedures for challenging the substantive or procedural legality of acts or omissions subject to the public participation provisions of Article 6 of the Convention. |
(9) Article 9(2) and (4) of the Aarhus Convention provides for access to judicial or other procedures for challenging the substantive or procedural legality of acts or omissions subject to the public participation provisions of Article 6 of the Convention and other relevant articles. |
Justification Provisions relating to review may also be applied to Articles 7 and 8; cf. Article 9(2)(b) of the Aarhus Convention. | |
| Amendment 8 Recital 10 | |
|
(10) Provision should be made in respect of certain directives in the environmental area which require Member States to produce plans and programmes relating to the environment, so as to ensure public participation consistent with the provisions of the Aarhus Convention, in particular Article 7 thereof. |
(10) Provision should be made in respect of Community legislation which requires Member States to produce plans and programmes relating to the environment, so as to ensure public participation consistent with the provisions of the Aarhus Convention, in particular Article 7 thereof. |
Justification See justification for the amendment to Recital 2. | |
| Amendment 9 ARTICLE 1 | |
|
Article 1 Public participation concerning plans and programmes 1. For the purposes of this Article “the public” shall mean one or more natural or legal persons and, in accordance with national legislation or practice, their associations, organisations or groups. 2. Member States shall ensure that the public are given early and effective opportunities to participate in the preparation and review of the plans or, as the case may be, programmes required to be drawn up under the provisions listed in Annex I. To that end, Member States shall ensure that: (a) the public are informed, whether by public notices or other appropriate means, about any proposals for such plans or programmes or for their review and that relevant information about such proposals is made available to the public (b) the public are entitled to express comments and opinions before decisions on the plans and programmes are made; (c) in making those decisions, due account shall be taken of the results of the public participation. 3. Member States shall identify the public entitled to participate for the purposes of paragraph 2, including relevant non-governmental organisations, such as those promoting environmental protection. The detailed arrangements for public participation under this Article shall be determined by the Member States so as to secure a wide participation by the public. Reasonable time-frames shall be provided allowing sufficient time for each of the different stages of public participation required by this Article. |
Article 1 Public participation concerning plans, programmes and policies 1. For the purposes of this Article “the public” shall mean one or more natural or legal persons and, in accordance with national legislation or practice, their associations, organisations or groups. 2. Member States shall ensure that the public are given early and effective opportunities to participate in the preparation and review of the plans or, as the case may be, programmes required to be drawn up under the provisions listed in Annex I. To that end, Member States shall ensure that: (a) the public are informed, whether by public notices and using electronic media or other appropriate means, about any proposals for such plans or programmes or for their review and that relevant information about such proposals is made available to the public, inter alia information about the right to participate in decision-making and about the competent authority to which comments or questions may be submitted; (b) the public are entitled to express comments and opinions before decisions on the plans and programmes are made; (c) in making those decisions, due account shall be taken of the results of the public participation. 3. Member States shall identify the public entitled to participate for the purposes of paragraph 2, including relevant non-governmental organisations, such as those promoting environmental protection. The detailed arrangements for public participation under this Article shall be determined by the Member States so as to secure a wide participation by the public. These arrangements may include educating the public about public decision-making, or the funding of such education. Reasonable time-frames shall be provided allowing sufficient time for each of the different stages of public participation required by this Article. 3a. Member States shall ensure that, having examined the concerns and opinions expressed by the public, the competent authority makes reasonable efforts to reply to the public individually or collectively, explaining what possible effects the public’s participation in the matter concerned has. |
Justification 1. Article 7 of the Aarhus Convention concerns not only planning and programmes but also environmental policies. The amendment seeks to ensure that the Community takes Article 7 of the Convention fully into account. 2. In accordance with the provisions of Articles 2 and 3, subparagraph (a) should at least mention some of the types of information which are the most essential from the point of view of the effectiveness of public participation. 3. At the same time as opportunities for participation are increased, it is important to safeguard practical and general arrangements to guarantee a fruitful and compatible contribution to the decision-making process. One important factor is organising education to inform members of the public how decision-making takes place. The amendment also applies the principle laid down in Article 3(2) of the Aarhus Convention. 4. In order to operate sensibly, the directive should encourage dialogue between the competent authority and the public. In normal cases this could mean a brief account or statement concerning the outcome of the participation generally, but where necessary it could just as well mean an individual reply. | |
| Amendment 10 ARTICLE 1, PARAGRAPH 2, SUBPARAGRAPH (b) | |
|
(b) the public are entitled to express comments and opinions before decisions on the plans and programmes are made; |
(b) the public are entitled to express comments and opinions without prejudice to any options before decisions on the plans and programmes are made; |
Justification This amendment builds upon amendment 7 by the rapporteur. Article 1(2)b is amended to correspond more precisely to the Aarhus Convention’s requirement in Article 6.4, that public participation must take place at an early stage, when all options are still open, and not just precede decision-making. Article1(3) is amended to follow more closely the wording of Article 6(7) of the Arhus convention. | |
| Amendment 11 ARTICLE 1, PARAGRAPH 3a (new) | |
|
3a. Member States shall ensure that, in accordance with the relevant national legal system, the public, being able to justify its sufficient interest and concern, has access to a review procedure before a court of law or another independent and impartial body established by law to challenge the substantive or procedural legality of decisions, acts or omissions subject to the public participation provisions of this Directive. Any such procedure shall be expeditious and either free or cheap. | |
Justification The added amendment aims to reduce the risk for abusing the review procedure. It is consistent with the general approach of the report but requests the members of the public to justify their interest in review. Replaces the amendment 8 in the original report. | |
| Amendment 12 ARTICLE 1a (new) | |
|
Article [1a] Public participation during the preparation of executive regulations and generally applicable legally binding rules 1. For the purposes of this Article ‘the public’ shall mean one or more natural or legal persons and, in accordance with national legislation or practice, their associations, organisations or groups. 2. Member States may provide that the public shall be given early and effective opportunities to participate in the preparation of executive regulations and generally applicable legally binding rules. To that end, Member States shall ensure that the provisions of Article 1(2)(a)-(c), (3) and (4) are complied with in an appropriate manner. | |
Justification The Commission proposal did not contain any provision corresponding to Article 8 of the Aarhus Convention concerning public participation in the preparation of rules and generally binding instruments. Article 8 of the Convention enshrines important basic principles and is thus more than merely the expression of a hope, which would constitute soft law. This amendment is intended to implement the article which has this purpose. However, as Article 8 of the Aarhus Convention is not absolutely imperative, the new article inserted by this amendment leaves its implementation to the discretion of Member States. | |
| Amendment 13 ARTICLE 2, PARAGRAPH 1 | |
|
(1) In Article 1(2) the following definitions are added: “the public” means one or more natural or legal persons and, in accordance with national legislation or practice, their associations, organisations or groups. “the public concerned” means the public affected or likely to be affected by, or having an interest in, the development consent procedure; for the purposes of this definition, non-governmental organisations promoting environmental protection and meeting any requirements under national law shall be deemed to have an interest. |
(1) Article 1 is amended as follows: (a) In paragraph 2 the following definitions are added: “the public” means one or more natural or legal persons and, in accordance with national legislation or practice, their associations, organisations or groups. “development consent procedure” means a procedure in the course of which a project is assessed by means of an environmental impact assessment and which ends with a decision by the competent authority concerning the development consent. (b) Paragraph 4 is replaced by the following: ‘(4) Member States may decide, on a case-by-case basis and in accordance with national law, not to apply this directive to projects serving national defence purposes if such application would have an adverse impact on such projects.’ |
Justification 1. In accordance with Article 1, the words ‘the public’ replace the words ‘the public concerned’. This is intended to stress the right of members of the public to participate. It is also evident that members of the public who do not perceive any interest to themselves in the matter will not consider that they have any interest in participation either. The text which the amendment proposes to delete is highly problematic as regards the definition of NGOs and in this respect the definition of ‘the public’ is more unsatisfactory. The report consistently replaces ‘the public concerned’ with ‘the public’ in order on the one hand to avoid the obvious problems and on the other hand to ensure broad public participation. 2. ‘Development consent procedure’ is defined here in addition to the existing definition (in Directive 85/337/EEC) of the same term. (NB: the Finnish text uses the word ‘lupa’ [permit]: the English term ‘development consent’ is perhaps more descriptive and in addition differs from the term ‘permit’ used in the IPPC directive [likewise rendered in Finnish as ‘lupa’]). The amendment seeks to clarify the difference between the environmental impact assessment procedure and the development consent procedure: the former can be used as a tool in the latter, while the latter concludes with a decision concerning the development consent. 3. The amendment alters Article 1(4) of the EIA directive (85/337/EEC) so as to bring it into line with Article 6(1)(c) of the Aarhus Convention. Contrary to the Aarhus Convention, the directive as currently in force excludes from the EIA procedure all projects which serve defence purposes without leaving anything to the discretion of the Member State. | |
| Amendment 14 ARTICLE 2, PARAGRAPH 1a (new) | |
|
(1a) Article 2(3) is amended as follows: Subparagraphs (a) and (b) are replaced by the following: ‘(a) consider whether another form of assessment would be appropriate; (b) make available to the public the information obtained in the manner referred to in subparagraph (a), the information relating to the exemption decision, the grounds for the decision and practical directions for seeking a review pursuant to Article [10a].’ | |
Justification In accordance with new standards concerning access to information, it should not be left to the discretion of the authority whether to publish the information even if it has been obtained by means of ‘another form of assessment’; yet this would be case under the directive in force without the amendment proposed here (as amended by Directive 97/11/EC). This amendment would also make such information publicly available. Information about a decision should always include practical directions for seeking a review. | |
| Amendment 15 ARTICLE 2, PARAGRAPH 2, SUBPARAGRAPH 3, FIRST PART | |
|
3. The public shall be informed, whether by public notices or other appropriate means, of the following matters early in the development consent procedure and, at the latest, as soon as information can be provided: |
3. The public shall be informed, whether by public notices and using electronic media or other appropriate means, of the following matters early in the development consent procedure and, at the latest, as soon as information can be provided: |
Justification In order to underline the importance of using electronic media. | |
| Amendment 16 Article 2(2)(a)(3)(a) | |
|
3. The public shall be informed, whether by public notices or other appropriate means, of the following matters early in the development consent procedure and, at the latest, as soon as information can be provided: (a) the request for development consent; |
3. The public shall be informed, whether by public notices or other appropriate means, of the following matters early in the development consent or review procedure and, at the latest, as soon as information can be provided: (a) the request for development consent or the request for review of consent; |
Justification The amendment seeks to avoid the likelihood of significant changes being made to the original project without the public being effectively informed early through the review procedure. | |
| Amendment 17 ARTICLE 2, PARAGRAPH 2, SUBPARAGRAPH 4 | |
|
“4. The public concerned shall be entitled to express comments and opinions to the competent authority or authorities before the decision on the request for development consent is taken. |
“4. The public concerned shall be entitled to express comments and opinions without prejudice to any options to the competent authority or authorities before the decision on the request for development consent is taken. |
Justification This amendment builds upon amendment 12 by the rapporteur. For justification see amendment 30. | |
| Amendment 18 ARTICLE 2, PARAGRAPH 2, SUBPARAGRAPH 5 | |
|
5. The detailed arrangements, for informing the public (for example by bill posting within a certain radius or publication in local newspapers) and for consulting the public concerned (for example by written submissions or by way of a public enquiry), shall be determined by the Member States. Reasonable time-frames shall be provided, allowing sufficient time for each of the different stages provided for in this Article.” |
5. The detailed arrangements, for informing the public (for example by bill posting within a certain radius or publication in local newspapers) and for consulting the public concerned (for example by written submissions or by way of a public enquiry), shall be determined by the Member States. Reasonable time-frames shall be provided, allowing sufficient time for informing the public, and for the public to prepare and participate effectively in each of the different stages provided for in this Article. |
Justification This amendment builds upon amendment 12 by the rapporteur. For justification see amendment 30. | |
| Amendment 19 ARTICLE 2, PARAGRAPH 3, SUBPARAGRAPH (c) | |
|
(c) Paragraph 5 is replaced by the following: ‘5. The detailed arrangements for implementing the provisions of this Article shall be determined by the Member States concerned and shall be such as to enable the public concerned in the territory of the affected Member State to participate effectively in the development consent procedure for the project.’ |
(c) Paragraph 5 is replaced by the following: ‘5. The detailed arrangements for implementing the provisions of this Article shall be determined by the Member States concerned and shall be such as to enable the public in the territory of the affected Member State to participate effectively in the development consent procedure for the project.” |
Justification 'The public': see amendment to Article 2(1). | |
| Amendment 20 ARTICLE 2, PARAGRAPH 4 | |
|
(4) In Article 9, paragraph 2 is replaced by the following: ‘2. The competent authority or authorities shall inform any Member State which has been consulted pursuant to Article 7, forwarding to it the information referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article. The consulted Member States shall ensure that that information is made available to the public concerned in their own territory.’ |
(4) Article 9 is amended as follows: (a) The following indent is inserted in paragraph 1: ‘- practical directions concerning the procedure for seeking review pursuant to Article [10a]’; (b) Paragraph 2 is replaced by the following: ‘2. The competent authority or authorities shall inform any Member State which has been consulted pursuant to Article 7, forwarding to it the information referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article. The consulted Member States shall ensure that that information is made available to the public in their own territory.’ |
Justification 1. Practical directions for seeking review: see amendment to Article 2(1)(a). 2. 'The public': see amendment to Article 2(1). | |
| Amendment 21 ARTICLE 2, PARAGRAPH 4, SUBPARAGRAPH 2 | |
|
‘2. The competent authority or authorities shall inform any Member State which has been consulted pursuant to Article 7, forwarding to it the information referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article. The consulted Member States shall ensure that that information is made available to the public concerned in their own territory.’ |
‘2. The competent authority or authorities shall inform any Member State which has been consulted pursuant to Article 7, forwarding to it the information referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article. The consulted Member States shall ensure that that information is made available to the public concerned in their own territory and language.’ |
Justification This amendment builds upon amendment 14 by the rapporteur and makes sure that the public receives the information in their own language. | |
| Amendment 22 ARTICLE 3, PARAGRAPH 2a (new) | |
|
(2a) The following paragraph 3 is added to Article 13: ‘[2a.] A reconsideration shall at all events be undertaken if the public submits in writing a substantiated request to this effect pursuant to paragraph 2 above.’ | |
Justification Article 13 of the IPPC directive (96/61/EC) lays down that competent authorities shall reconsider and, where necessary, update permit conditions in certain eventualities. This amendment is intended to enable the public to participate in the process, if necessary by ‘alerting’ the authority. It is a far better approach from the point of view of society as a whole, too, than the possibility of bringing legal action in response to the authority’s actions. This less cumbersome procedure will also be important in connection with future legislation on environmental liability; if the issue is fundamentally that of the need for a reconsideration of the permit conditions, the procedure relating to environmental liability will be too cumbersome, slow and costly from the point of view of all parties. | |
| Amendment 23 ARTICLE 3, PARAGRAPH 4 | |
|
(4) The following Article 15a is inserted: ‘Article 15a Access to justice Member States shall ensure that, in accordance with the relevant national legal system, the public concerned has access to a review procedure before a court of law or another body established by law to challenge the substantive or procedural legality of decisions, acts or omissions subject to the public participant ion provisions of this Directive. Any such procedure shall be expeditious and shall not be prohibitively expensive.” |
(4) The following Article 15a is inserted: ‘Article 15a Access to justice Member States shall ensure that, after the decision has been taken on the development consent and in accordance with the relevant national legal system, the public, being able to justify its sufficient interest and concern, has access to a review procedure before a court of law or another independent and impartial body established by law to challenge the substantive or procedural legality of decisions, acts or omissions subject to the public participant ion provisions of this Directive. Any such procedure shall be expeditious and either free or cheap.” |
Justification The added amendment aims to reduce the risk for abusing the review procedure. It is consistent with the general approach of the report but requests the members of the public to justify their interest in review. Replaces the amendment 19 in the original report. | |
| Amendment 24 ARTICLE 3, PARAGRAPH 5, SUBPARAGRAPH b | |
|
(b) The following paragraphs 3 and 4 are added: ‘3. The results of any consultations pursuant to paragraphs 1 and 2 must be taken into consideration when the competent authority reaches a decision on the application. 4. The competent authority shall inform any Member State which has been consulted pursuant to paragraph 1, of the decision reached on the application and shall forward to it the information referred to in Article 15(5). That Member State shall take the measures necessary to ensure that that information is made available to the public concerned in its own territory.’ |
(b) The following paragraphs 3 and 4 are added: ‘3. The results of any consultations pursuant to paragraphs 1 and 2 must be taken into consideration when the competent authority reaches a decision on the application. 4. The competent authority shall inform any Member State which has been consulted pursuant to paragraph 1, of the decision reached on the application and shall forward to it the information referred to in Article 15(5). That Member State shall take the measures necessary to ensure that that information is made available in an appropriate manner to the public in its own territory.’ |
Justification To take account of the nature of the information provided by the other Member State and technical data relating to it, it is proposed that the words ‘in an appropriate manner’ be inserted. As elsewhere, the words ‘the public concerned’ are replaced with ‘the public’. (In addition, a change of word order is made in the last sentence of the Finnish version in the interests of clarity.) | |
| Amendment 25 ANNEX I, title | |
|
ANNEX I PROVISIONS FOR PLANS AND PROGRAMMES REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 3 |
ANNEX I PROVISIONS FOR PLANS AND PROGRAMMES REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 1 |
Justification The amendment corrects a straightforward error in the Commission proposal. | |
| Amendment 26 ANNEX I, point (g)a (new) | |
|
(g) a Other Community legislation, plans and programmes, which may have a significant effect on the environment or on human health and wellbeing, the implementation of which is required to take account of Article 6 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (OJ C 340, 10.11.1997). | |
Justification This amendment builds upon amendment 22 by the rapporteur. It aims to make sure that EU structural assistance programmes are included in the scope of the directive. | |
| Amendment 27 ANNEX III | |
|
In Directive 96/61/EC, the following Annex V is added: ‘Annex V Public participation in decision-making 1. The public shall be informed (by public notices or other appropriate means) of the following matters early in the procedure for the taking of a decision or, at the latest, as soon as the information can be provided: (a) the application for a permit or, as the case may be, the proposal for the updating of a permit or of permit conditions, including in all cases the description of the elements listed in Article 6(1); (b) where applicable, the fact that a decision is subject to a national or transboundary environmental impact assessment or to consultations between Member States in accordance with Article 17; (c) details of the competent authorities responsible for taking the decision or from which relevant information can be obtained or to which comments (or questions) can be submitted; (d) the nature of possible decisions or, where there is one, the draft decision; (e) where applicable, the details relating to a proposal for the updating of a permit or of permit conditions; (f) the main reports and advice issued to the competent authority in connection with the taking of the decision; (g) an indication of the times and places where or means by which the relevant information will be made available; (h) details of the arrangements for public participation and consultation made pursuant to paragraph 4. 2. The public concerned shall be entitled to express comments and opinions to the competent authority before a decision is taken. 3. The results of the consultations held pursuant to this Annex must be taken into consideration in the taking of a decision. 4. The detailed arrangements for informing the public (for example by bill posting within a certain radius or publication in local newspapers) and consulting the public concerned (for example by written submissions or by way of a public enquiry) shall be determined by the Member States. Reasonable time-frames shall be provided allowing sufficient time for each of the different stages provided for in this Annex.’ |
In Directive 96/61/EC, the following Annex V is added: ‘Annex V Public participation in decision-making 1. The public shall be informed (by public notices and using electronic media or other appropriate means) of the following matters early in the procedure for the taking of a decision or, at the latest, as soon as the information can be provided: (a) the application for a permit or, as the case may be, the proposal for the reconsideration or updating of a permit or of permit conditions, including in all cases the description of the elements listed in Article 6(1); (b) where applicable, the fact that a decision is subject to a national or transboundary environmental impact assessment or to consultations between Member States in accordance with Article 17; (c) details of the competent authorities responsible for taking the decision or from which relevant information can be obtained or to which comments (or questions) can be submitted; (d) the nature of possible decisions or, where there is one, the draft decision; (e) where applicable, the details relating to a proposal for the updating of a permit or of permit conditions; (f) the main reports and advice issued to the competent authority in connection with the taking of the decision; (g) an indication of the times and places where or means by which the relevant information will be made available; (h) details of the arrangements for public participation and consultation made pursuant to paragraph 4. 2. The public concerned shall be entitled to express comments and opinions to the competent authority before a decision is taken. 3. The results of the consultations held pursuant to this Annex must be duly taken into consideration in the taking of a decision. 4. The detailed arrangements for informing the public (for example by bill posting within a certain radius or publication in local newspapers) and consulting the public (for example by written submissions or by way of a public enquiry) shall be determined by the Member States. Reasonable time-frames shall be provided allowing sufficient time for each of the different stages provided for in this Annex.’ |
Justification The amendments follow similar amendments to previous articles and bring the wording of the proposal more into line with that of the Aarhus Convention. | |
| Amendment 28 ANNEX III, point 2 | |
|
2. The public concerned shall be entitled to express comments and opinions to the competent authority before a decision is taken. |
2. The public concerned shall be entitled to submit comments and opinions in writing or, if appropriate, at a public hearing, to the competent authority before a decision is taken. |
Justification This amendment builds upon amendment 23 by the rapporteur. The amendment follows the language of Article 6(7), resp. Article 6(3) of the Aarhus Convention. | |
| Amendment 29 ANNEX III, point 4 | |
|
4. The detailed arrangements for informing the public (for example by bill posting within a certain radius or publication in local newspapers) and consulting the public concerned (for example by written submissions or by way of a public enquiry) shall be determined by the Member States. Reasonable time-frames shall be provided allowing sufficient time for each of the different stages provided for in this Annex.’ |
4. The detailed arrangements for informing the public (for example by bill posting within a certain radius or publication in local newspapers) and consulting the public concerned (for example by written submissions or by way of a public enquiry) shall be determined by the Member States. Reasonable time-frames shall be provided allowing sufficient time for informing the public, and for the public to prepare and participate effectively in each of the different stages provided for in this Annex.’ |
Justification This amendment builds upon amendment 23 by the rapporteur. The amendment follows the language of Article 6(7), resp. Article 6(3) of the Aarhus Convention. | |
- [1] OJ C 154, 29.5.2001, p. 123.
DRAFT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION
European Parliament legislative resolution on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive on providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment and amending Council directives 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC (COM(2000) 839 – C5-0027/2001 – 2000/0331(COD))
(Codecision procedure: first reading)
The European Parliament,
– having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2000) 839[1]),
– having regard to Article 251(2) of the EC Treaty and Articles 175(1) of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C5‑0027/2001),
– having regard to Rule 67 of its Rules of Procedure,
– having regard to the report of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy and the opinions of the Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs and the Committee on Petitions (A5-0321/2001),
1. Approves the Commission proposal as amended;
2. Asks to be consulted again should the Commission intend to amend the proposal substantially or replace it with another text;
3. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and Commission.
- [1] OJ C 154, 29.5.2001, p. 123.
EXPLANATORY STATEMENT
The proposal concerning public participation is for a horizontal directive, intended to ensure opportunities for public participation at the early and decisive stages of environmental decision-making concerning
1. the drawing-up of certain plans and programmes (in accordance with the list in Annex I to the proposal for a directive) (Article 1);
2. the environmental impact assessment (EIA) procedure (Article 2); and
3. integrated pollution prevention and control (IPPC) (Article 3).
Annex I to the proposal lists the instruments in relation to which the public are for the first time to be given the opportunity to participate in the drawing-up of plans and programmes. Such provisions are to be inserted in the directives on waste (75/442/EEC); batteries and accumulators (91/157/EEC); the protection of waters against nitrate pollution (91/676/EEC); hazardous waste (91/689/EEC); packaging (94/62/EC); air quality (96/62/EC); and landfill of waste (99/31/EC).
As far as the second and third fields are concerned, opportunities for participation are to be created by amending the corresponding directives on EIAs (85/337/EEC) and IPPC (96/61/EC).
In relation to these three fields, it is laid down that information must be made available to the public within a reasonable time-frame and they must be given the opportunity to express comments and opinions before decisions are made, and that in making the decisions, due account shall be taken of the results of the public participation. In addition, provision is made for a procedure for challenging the substantive or procedural legality of acts or omissions subject to the public participation provisions.
The Commission proposal consistently omits those provisions of the Aarhus Convention which may be regarded as constituting ‘soft law’. Thus for example Article 6(5) of the Convention is not applied to the proposal for a directive at all (the purpose of this article being to encourage applicants for development consent to enter into dialogue with the public and to make information available to the public about the objectives of their application even before the application is lodged with the authorities). The Commission’s approach is defensible, but in some cases it will not be to the advantage of the authorities. In the example in question it might be concluded that there would be fewer calls on the authorities’ time and resources if other parties were also responsible for dialogue with the public. Similarly, the Commission has entirely omitted from the proposal Article 8 of the Convention, because it is not couched in entirely imperative terms. Its inclusion, albeit for implementation at the discretion of Member States, is a consequence of the efforts made in the report to implement the spirit of the Convention, as Article 8 expresses important fundamental principles underlying the Convention.
In that it amends Community law to bring it into line with the Aarhus Convention, the directive constitutes a second pillar in a procedure designed to bring about the Convention’s ratification within the Community. The first pillar concerned public access to environmental information and was considered at first reading in March 2001; the rapporteur was the same as for this report. The last pillar consists of the proposal concerning legality and review; the Commission is still drafting this proposal.
OPINION OF THE COMMITTEE ON CITIZENS' FREEDOMS AND RIGHTS, JUSTICE AND HOME AFFAIRS
27 June 2001
for the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy
on Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment and amending Council Directives 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC
(COM(2000) 839– C5‑0027/2001 – 2000/0331 (COD))
Draftsman: William Newton Dunn
PROCEDURE
The Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs appointed William Newton Dunn draftsman at its meeting of 20 March 2001.
It considered the draft opinion at its meeting of 19 June 2001.
At the latter meeting it adopted the following conclusion unanimously.
The following were present for the vote: Graham R. Watson, chairman; Robert J.E. Evans; vice-chairman; William Newton Dunn, draftsman; Niall Andrews, Mary Elizabeth Banotti, Maria Berger, Mario Borghezio, Alima Boumediene-Thiery, Kathalijne Maria Buitenweg, Marco Cappato, Michael Cashman, Charlotte Cederschiöld, Carmen Cerdeira Morterero, Ozan Ceyhun, Carlos Coelho, Daniel Marc Cohn-Bendit, Thierry Cornillet, Carlos Costa Neves, Gérard M.J. Deprez, Rosa M. Díez González, Gerardo Galeote Quecedo, Jorge Salvador Hernández Mollar, Anna Karamanou, Margot Keßler, Luís Marinho, Véronique Mathieu, Iñigo Méndez de Vigo, Hartmut Nassauer, Arie M. Oostlander, Elena Ornella Paciotti, Hubert Pirker, Martine Roure, Olle Schmidt, Ingo Schmitt, Ilka Schröder, Martin Schulz, Joke Swiebel, Fodé Sylla, Charles Tannock, Anna Terrón i Cusí, Astrid Thors, Jaime Valdivielso de Cué, Anne E.M. Van Lancker, Gianni Vattimo, Christian Ulrik von Boetticher, Olga Zrihen Zaari.
SHORT JUSTIFICATION
This proposal sets out the minimum requirements for effective public participation in environmental plans and programmes (as set out in a number of existing Community Directives) and includes amendments to two existing directives: Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment[1], and Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control[2].
The amendments seek to ensure that the existing Community rules on environmental plans and programmes are fully compatible with the provisions of the UN/ECE Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (the "Aarhus Convention"). The proposal, as has been explained by the Commission, is therefore of a technical nature in order to enable the EU to comply with the Aarhus Convention and thereby be able to ratify it on the basis of the existing regime rather than by creating new legislation.
The draftsman notes that the proposal does not make full reference to the dissemination of information to the public through the use of new technologies, notably, the Internet'. However, he was satisfied that the term "or other appropriate means" in, for example, Article 2(a) of the proposed directive includes the use of such technologies.
Therefore, the draftsman recommends that the Committee approves the Commission's proposal without amendment.
CONCLUSIONS
The Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs approves the proposal and calls on the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, as the committee responsible, to take account of this opinion when considering its report.
OPINION OF THE COMMITTEE ON PETITIONS
13 September 2001
for the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy
on public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment and amending Council directives 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC
(COM(00) 839 – C5‑0027/2001 – 2000/0331(COD))
Draftsman: Jean Lambert
PROCEDURE
The Committee on Petitions appointed Jean Lambert draftsman at its meeting of 6 March 2001.
It considered the draft opinion at its meetings of 12/13 September 2001.
At the last meeting it adopted the following conclusions unanimously.
The following were present for the vote: Vitaliano Gemelli, chairman, Roy Perry, 1st vice-chairman, Proinsas De Rossa, 2nd vice-chairman, Jean Lambert, draftsman, Janelly Fourtou, Laura González Álvarez, Véronique Mathieu, Hans-Peter Mayer.
CONCLUSIONS
The Committee on Petitions calls on the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, as the committee responsible, to take in account the following points:
1. The Petitions Committee receives a significant number of petitions concerning environmental issues, whether this concerns Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), waste disposal, water quality, land-use planning, development proposals and many other areas. Questions have also been raised when a development is receiving EU Funding under the Structural Funds for example, yet the petitioners believe that there will be a detrimental effect on the environment. It is therefore important to examine other areas of EU policy which could have a bearing on the quality of the environment, such as the Structural Funds and the Common Agricultural Policy, in the light of the Aarhus Convention and not just those areas directly labelled as environmental.
2. The Petitions Committee receives petitions which relate directly to the scope of proposed development schemes within a wider context. It is often only possible for the public to react to a specific proposal, whereas they may have concerns relating to overall planning and development policy. Therefore, we would ask the Commission to reconsider its decision to treat policy options as "soft-law" only, in order to seriously reflect in its proposal the requirements stated in Article 7 of and 8 of the Aarhus Convention on effective public participation.
3. Given the number of petitions our Committee receives from social bodies or enterprises - such as small-scale fisheries and farmers - which could be affected, or other not currently covered by the proposed definition of the "public", it appears sensible to leave the definition of public as open as possible in order to avoid false divisions.
4. Given the difficulties small and local voluntary groups have to match the resources of large corporations or public authorities and inequality in having access to adequate means of assesment and the imbalance of power as a result, it is important that the question of access to resources is taken into consideration as well strengthening the Article 9 provisions of the Aarhus Convention on access to justice to include an "independent and impartial body".
It can therefore be seen that the Petitions Committee has a direct interest in the quality and delivery of effective public participation. We welcome the Commission proposal as being a useful contribution to further involving the public but that the proposal can be improved on the above lines. We trust that the Rapporteur and the Environment Committee, given their excellent work on the Access to Environmental Information Directive, will take our views into account in formulating this Report.