Madam President, the proposal now before us is the second of three directives that aim to bring legislation in the Member States in line with the Århus Convention. Just as with the first directive on access to environmental information, the third reading has now taken into account the result of conciliation, which represents Parliament’s position very clearly, and which meets the minimum requirement in the Århus Convention fully and even goes beyond it. The Council adopted many elements from Parliament’s first reading in its common position, in the same way that Parliament was able to adopt many elements from the common position. We thus set out to achieve conciliation with considerably fewer problems than there were with regard to the first pillar. On the other hand, just these few issues caused huge problems, owing to differences in approach. The Commission proposal and the Council’s common position are rooted in the ‘quick fix’ principle, while Parliament had hoped for a broader, horizontal approach. Obviously, however, it is not Parliament’s aim to defend its position to the letter, but instead ensure that there are no grey areas left in EU legislation where public participation would be justified but impossible owing to some blunder on the part of a legislator. During conciliation we were able to find a two-stage solution to the problem. On the one hand, the requirements concerning public participation in line with the Århus Convention are to be included in new Community legislation from the outset. On the other hand, existing legislation and the field covered by the directive are to be reviewed on the basis of the experience gained during the first six years of its application. During conciliation the Member States undertook to promote practical opportunities for public participation. Authorities will be encouraged, for example, to inform the public about decisions taken, and the reasons and considerations upon which they are based, and public participation processes. The time limits for participation in decision-making at the various stages must be reasonable, so that the public can prepare and participate in decision-making effectively. In addition, authorities will be encouraged to promote environmental education of the public, which will also undoubtedly be in the authorities’ own interests, in that the extent to which people participate effectively can only improve through education. The matter of public participation in the updating of permits was of particular significance. The parties involved in the conciliation process wanted to find the right balance in this matter. On the one hand, the public could genuinely participate when it is vitally important to check the operating permits of installations and factories, such as when there is a danger of an increase in the amount of environmental harm being done. On the other hand, an authority could check permits without any public participation when implementing acts and regulations where it is genuinely not a matter of discretion. I think we have succeeded here: the public can participate when decisions on the environment are actually being made, but the importance of a precious instrument for participation is not being inflated by asking the public to participate in routine decision-making. What was for Parliament an important victory in principle, albeit small in scope I suppose, was when during conciliation a process for exclusions relating to national defence projects was adopted. In accordance with the Århus Convention, projects relating to national defence may be excluded from the scope of the directive only on the basis of case-by-case decisions by the Member States’ authorities. After decisions are taken following public participation the public must naturally be able to evaluate them. In conciliation we arrived at a solution that is satisfactory as far as Parliament is concerned. The public right of access to information about the reasons for granting or refusing a permit is to be endorsed and the authorities required to provide the public with practical information, if required, about access to administrative and judicial review procedures. It should be mentioned in particular that, in order to ensure the result of the conciliation procedure does have an effect, the Commission has undertaken, in a statement to be annexed to the directive, to submit in the first quarter of 2003 a proposal for a directive concerning the implementation of the Århus Convention as regards access to justice in environmental matters. We can therefore be confident that the ratification process of the Århus Convention on the whole will make headway in the Community without undue delay. I would like to thank the Commission, the Council and especially Denmark, the country that held the presidency, now transferred to Greece, for their excellent levels of cooperation during conciliation and in the unofficial discussions that preceded it. I heartily recommend that Parliament endorse the results of the conciliation procedure in tomorrow’s vote.

Political group: PPE-DE