Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the "Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and the Council on Public Access to Environmental Information"
Date: 2001-05-18
Institutions: European Committee of the Regions
Subjects: access to information, dissemination of EU information, environmental policy, environmental protection

18.5.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 148/9

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the ‘Proposal for a Directive of the European
Parliament and the Council on Public Access to Environmental Information’

(2001/C 148/03)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

having regard to the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and the Council on Public
Access to Environmental Information [COM(2000) 402 final — 2000/0169 (COD)];

having regard to the decision of the European Council of 25 July 2000, under Article 175 (paragraph 1)
of the Treaty establishing the European Community, to consult the Committee on the subject;

having regard to the decision by the Bureau on June 13, which directs Commission 4 — Spatial Planning,
Urban Issues, Energy and Environment, to draw up the relevant opinion;

having regard to the draft opinion (CdR 273/2000 rev. 1) adopted by Commission 4 on 7 December
2000, for which the rapporteur was Margaret Eaton (UK/EPP),

adopted the following opinion at its 37th plenary session on 14 and 15 February 2001 (meeting of
14 February).

Views and recommendations of the Committee of the
Regions

1.

The proposal for a Directive on Freedom of Access
to Environmental Information

General comments regarding the scope of the proposed
directive

The proposed Directive relates to the way environmental
information is made available to the public at national, regional
and local authority level. However, at
in the
preparation of the Opinion from the Committee if the Regions,
two areas require clarification:

this point

— What is the mechanism for the Aarhus Convention to
be adopted by the European Commission, European
Parliament, and other European institutions?

Article 1 states that ‘The objective of the Directive is to ensure
that, as a matter of course, environmental information is made
available and disseminated to the public ...’. The definition of
‘applicant’ covers ‘any natural or legal person requesting
environmental information’. Thus the term applicant is taken
to also apply to public authorities themselves. It needs to be
noted that in their leadership role some public authorities will
themselves require environmental
information to be made
available from other organisations. This information will then,
in due course, be used to provide information for the public.
For example, it is important that local and regional government
is able to gather information from other public authorities to
enable the support of national government to meet objectives
relating to climate protection.
[This links to the points
made in relation to commercial confidentiality set out in
paragraph 9.] It is therefore suggested that the definition
should be extended by adding the words ‘including public
authorities themselves’.

The proposal contributes to the goal of sustainable develop-
ment by improving the rights of public access to environmental
information. It will enable the public to be better able to
participate in the decision-making effecting the environment.
This will lead to a better quality of life for present and future
generations. These principles are warmly welcomed.

2. Recital 8 — Who is entitled to request environmental

information

The COR urges the Commission to extend the right of access
to environmental information to include any natural or legal
person, thereby deleting the precision ‘in the Community’.

3. Article 2[1] — Extending the definition of ‘environ-

mental information’

It is recommended that ‘aural’ information requires clarification
within the terms of the definition. If this term relates only to
audio-recorded information, that is similar to information held
in written or electronic form. However, if it extends to word-
of-mouth information, which is difficult to verify it could be
open to misrepresentation. This latter case would pose poten-
tial difficulties. As regards the remaining types of information,
although these are probably covered in the 1990 Directive, the
greater clarity is welcomed.

C 148/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

18.5.2001

4. Article 2[2] — Definition of ‘Public authority’

9. Article 4[1] — Criteria for transfer and refusal of

requests

The proposal for the definition goes further than both the
1990 Directive and the Aarhus Convention. It would cover
those organisations that are not in the public sector but are
involved with services such as gas, electricity, water or
transport. The definition also applies to organisations carrying
out functions either directly or indirectly on behalf of the
public authority. It would apply to contractors or organisations
that manage the information archive or database on behalf of
the public authority. The environmental impacts of organis-
ations such as these are clearly significant. Therefore, this
widening of the definition of is welcomed.

5. Article 3[2][a] — Time limits for a response

The reduction in the time limit from two months to one
month is a first welcome step. The COR nevertheless urges for
a more prompt service to the citizens. It should also be stated
clearly that where a request is submitted to the wrong authority
the period only begins to run from the time when the request
is received by the correct authority. The COR also proposes
that all requests are made in writing.

6. Article 3[3] — Requests made for a specific purpose

The Committee of the Regions welcomes this provision. It is
considered helpful for the public authority to be notified of
the details of any processes and deadlines, which are relevant
in connection with the use to which the environmental
information is being put.

This addresses a failing of the 1990 Directive where infor-
mation may have been inadvertently denied through appli-
cations being made to the wrong authority. In the proposal,
public authorities are required to pass the request onto another
more appropriate body or authority if they themselves do
not hold the information. However, the Aarhus Convention
suggests a second option of responding to the applicant and
informing them of the authority which is believed to hold the
information. The Committee of the Regions believes there is
merit in retaining both options. The COR opposes § 4.1.b
which allows public authorities to refuse requests which are
formulated in too general a manner.
Instead the public
authorities should be required to advise the applicant on how
the application should be drafted in order to obtain the
required documents.

10. Article 4[1][c] — protocol re unfinished documents

or internal communications

It is suggested that further clarity is required regarding the
question of ‘unfinished documents’. If the information which
is stored on file is clear and not open to misinterpretation,
then it should be made available on request. Current practice
is for working papers such as records of meetings, interviews
etc. not to be accessible in draft form. However, if working
papers are stored for any length of time they then can become
accessible. If such data is used to produce a formal document
[after which it may be destroyed], then the formal item should
be accessible whilst the working papers are not.

7. Article 3[4] — Make reasonable efforts regarding the
supply of information in a specific form or format

It is not clear what the implications of adding this requirement
to the proposal will be; however, the test of reasonableness
should make it manageable.

11. Article 4[2][d] — Emissions and commercially confi-

dential information

The Committee of the Regions recommends that commercial
sensitivity shall be waived in circumstances where information
on emissions, relevant for the protection of the environment,
should be disclosed.

8. Article 3[5] — Practical arrangements under which
environmental information shall be effectively made
available.

12. Article 4[2][f] — Exemption form release for per-

sonal data

The COR calls for an obligation on the Member States to work
towards creating a system where public authorities have to
publish a list/register of the environmental information held
by the authority.

This proposal
is welcomed. The link is made, between
the release of environmental information, with the regime
concerning the protection of individuals with regard to the
processing of personal data and the free movement of such
data.

18.5.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 148/11

13. Article 5 — Charges

16. Article 7[1] — Dissemination of environmental

Where charges are incurred the proposal should allow for the
supply of information to be dependent on payment. It is
common practice to make supply dependent on payment and
the Convention explicitly allows this. It is understood that the
principle consideration is to respond to enquiries as soon as
possible but this may impose problems with debt recovery. If
the cost of carrying out procedure for debt recovery is
prohibitive, a significant source of reimbursement may be lost
to public authorities.

14. Article 5[3] — Free access to information on public

registers or lists

The Committee of the Regions welcomes this.

15. Article 6 — Access to Justice

information

As drafted, the Committee of the Regions finds this unwelcome
and suggests that both archive material and monitoring data
should be specifically excluded from the proposal. The cost of
making all archive material available is likely to outweigh the
benefits, whilst monitoring data which has not been interpreted
is likely to be misunderstood or misinterpreted.

17. Article 7[2] — publication of state of the environ-

ment reports

This further pressure to provide State of the Environment
reports is welcomed. However, it is important to recognise
that these State of the Environment reports do not have to be
‘stand alone’ documents. It might be the case that all the
relevant environmental data is disseminated in a report which
addresses sustainable development or well-being.

The COR stresses the importance of an effective access to
justice (timely, transparent, affordable and comprehensive); the
practical arrangements for this should be based on national
law. The process should not entail such high costs that the
right of appeal cannot be effectively used.

18. Article 7[3] — Making information available in

emergencies

The Committee of the Regions recognises this as formalising
current good practice and welcomes the measure.

Brussels, 14 February 2001.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Jos CHABERT