Mr President, it has been very exciting to be part of the process leading up to the decision we are to take on strategic environmental impact assessments. The idea behind environmental impact assessments for plans and programmes is an old one. The original draft directive appeared in the 1970s, at which time it covered policy areas, plans, programmes and projects. However, the Commission changed its mind and decided to propose a directive which only covered environmental impact assessments for projects. The next step was not taken until 1991, when the Commission put forward a proposal for a directive on environmental impact statements which took in policy areas, plans and programmes. However, the proposal was presented at a time of lively debate on the balance of power in what was then the European Community, and the proposal encountered so much opposition that it was withdrawn in 1992. The Commission did not give up, stating in the Fifth Environment Action Programme that an impact statement for policy areas, plans and programmes is necessary to achieve sustainable development. This can be seen in the context of the debate held earlier today. At the same time Member States were urged to expand the Directive on the Assessment of the Effects of Certain Public and Private Projects on the Environment to encompass plans and programmes. In 1997 the Commission put forward a new, amended proposal which no longer covered policy areas. This was a shame as the policy areas should naturally have been included. I tried to reintroduce policy areas into the text, but this amendment unfortunately received no support during the second reading. I hope it will at least be included some time in the future. The aim of the directive is to ensure that an environmental impact assessment is carried out on certain plans and programmes and that the result of these impact assessments will be taken into consideration during the planning and approval of plans and programmes which may have an environmental impact. The fact that the environmental assessment comes early on in the planning process, so that there is time to make adjustments or changes or draw up alternative plans, is naturally an excellent instrument for all decision makers. The directive must also naturally be seen as a complement to the environmental impact statements on projects, but these come much later in the decision-making process. Conciliation on this matter started in October 2000 and ended in Strasbourg on 14 March 2001. Although the negotiations have been tough, I am happy with the end result, which can be summarised as follows. Parliament has pushed through a requirement for monitoring environmental impact which was not included in the Council Common Position. This ensures that corrective measures can be taken if the monitoring shows that initiatives are insufficient. It will also be possible to identify hazardous effects and corrective measures, if possible at an early stage. A hard battle was also fought on whether Structural Funds, agricultural funds and funds for the applicant countries should be included in the directive. We eventually obtained political agreement that this would happen and that exceptions currently in force will only apply for the period of the programme, which ends in 2006/2007. I was not entirely satisfied with this solution. Therefore, an information note has been included, drawn up by Commission civil servants, which confirms that this will naturally also apply to the EU’s own plans and programmes. Another important and well-formulated point was that on transboundary consultations with third countries and public consultation. I would like to thank everyone who has been involved in this work: the Swedish Presidency for its tough negotiations, the Commission for all its expertise and my colleagues who have taken part in the committee and delegation work, as well as everyone else who has taken part in the delegation. Thank you all.

Political group: Verts-ALE