Mr President, this directive is a second pillar in the legislative process, designed to amend EU legislation to take account of the Aarhus Convention. The first pillar concerned the transparency of environmental information, and it is currently going through the conciliation procedure. We are still awaiting a Commission proposal on the third pillar. Concerning both the first and second pillar, it must be said that the Council has shown a very positive attitude, and over several presidential terms I have found that there is genuine commitment and good will on its part. With regard to this directive also, the Council has already approved many elements of Parliament’s first reading and now Parliament is to adopt many elements of the common position. Nevertheless, problems do remain and it would appear that this directive will also only take on its final shape in conciliation. In the general approach alone there are already differences. The Commission proposal and the Council’s common position are based on the ‘quick fix’ principle, while Parliament has wanted a broader horizontal approach. It is nevertheless clear that it is not Parliament’s aim to defend its amendments to the letter but rather ensure that there remain no grey areas in EU legislation, where public participation would be justified, but not possible. The importance of the report before us cannot be overemphasised. Unusually, it directly affects all citizens in the EU Member States and candidate countries. The public will now have the invaluable right to participate in decision-making on the environment. This is also an important tool for the environment, and one which may improve the quality of decision-making on the environment considerably. For these reasons, this is a tool that must be closely guarded. It would be in nobody’s interest – and least of all in the interests of the environment – if this tool were to be used for defending selfish interests, for politicking by opposition groups or to cause wilful mischief. As rapporteur I have been conscious of the fact that the tool now being created may be abused. Furthermore, the authorities in Member States must be aware of the risks involved in national implementation. Moreover, that alone is not enough. The environmental organisations must also know they have an immense responsibility not to allow pettiness to inflate the importance of the rights granted to our citizens and the special status accorded the organisations themselves. There is also the problem of Mr and Mrs Nimby or the 'Not in my backyard' syndrome. But I myself have tried to avoid this by stressing the importance, insofar as it has been in your rapporteur’s power to do so, of arguing the case and the high quality of participation. Opposition alone and the self-centred defence of one’s own territory cannot be sufficient. The tool now being created for this is too important and the resources used for its creation too invaluable. For all these reasons I wish to defend the rights of our citizens to participate in decision-making on the environment and I am, moreover, prepared to repel any opportunity to abuse this tool. I also want to remind everyone of my solution, which was rejected by Parliament at first reading, which Member States might yet consider when they implement the directive nationally. In it I hold that the public as a whole have the right to express an opinion but the right to access to justice only applies to that section of the public affected by a decision taken. My solution is unusual in that it would have simultaneously benefited both those citizens who were genuinely keen to participate and the authorities, and the parties responsible for the relevant projects. Firstly the work of the authorities would be easier as they would not need to specify beforehand the parties concerned and, at the same time, the likelihood of omission when the parties were being heard would be removed. Secondly, the ready cause for complaint of those who want to apply the brakes would go: the party was not heard. Above all, however, it would mean the quality of participation would be highlighted and the importance attached to hearing Mr and Mrs Nimby would decline. A precondition of the ratification of the Aarhus Convention in the EU is that the working practices and procedures of the EU’s institutions should be revised as necessary. In addition it is especially important for the Commission to submit a proposal on the third pillar regarding review and access to justice as speedily as possible, as this is surely the most problematic of them all. Unfortunately, the Commission has not been able, despite its promises, to put forward a clear timetable and course of action in respect of the measures that need to be taken for ratification.

Political group: PPE-DE