Report from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the application and effectiveness of Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment and amending with regard to public participation and access to justice Council Directives 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC
Date: 2010-04-14
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: access to EU information, access to the courts, action programme, application of EU law, environmental protection, report, transparency in decision-making

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 14.4.2010 
COM(2010)143 final 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND 
THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 

ON THE APPLICATION AND EFFECTIVENESS OF DIRECTIVE 2003/35/EC OF 
THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL OF 26 MAY 2003 
PROVIDING FOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN RESPECT OF THE DRAWING UP 
OF CERTAIN PLANS AND PROGRAMMES RELATING TO THE ENVIRONMENT 
AND AMENDING WITH REGARD TO PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND ACCESS 
TO JUSTICE COUNCIL DIRECTIVES 85/337/EEC AND 96/61/EC  

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

report  has  been  compiled  by 

This 
to  Article 5  of 
Directive 2003/35/EC (hereinafter 'the Directive'). The aim of this Directive was to contribute 
to  the  implementation  of  the  obligations  arising  under  the  Aarhus  Convention  of 
25 June 19981, particularly Articles 6, 7, 9(2) and 9(4) thereof.  

the  Commission  pursuant 

Article 5 reads: 'By 25 June 2009, the Commission shall send a report on the application and 
effectiveness of this Directive to the European Parliament and to the Council. With a view to 
further integrating environmental protection requirements, in accordance with Article 6 of the 
Treaty, and taking into account the experience acquired in the application of this Directive in 
the  Member  States,  such  a  report  will  be  accompanied  by  proposals  for  amendment  of  this 
Directive,  if  appropriate.  In  particular,  the  Commission  will  consider  the  possibility  of 
extending  the  scope  of  this  Directive  to  other  plans  and  programmes  relating  to  the 
environment.' 

It  should  be  noted  that  Article 3  of  the  Directive  amended  the  Directive  on  environmental 
impact assessment (EIA). A thorough analysis of the EIA Directive was carried out, including 
those aspects covered by Directive 2003/35/EC, the outcome of which led to the compilation 
of  the  Report  of  23 July 20092.  In  addition,  Article 4  of  the  Directive  amending 
Directive 96/61/EC3  concerning  integrated  pollution  prevention  and  control  (IPPC)  was 
formally repealed when the latter Directive was consolidated. The repeal was purely formal, 
inasmuch as the provisions of Article 4 and Annex II were incorporated without amendment 
into the codified Directive. By its Decision of 2 March 20064, the Commission established a 
questionnaire  on  IPPC  concerning  the  experience  gained  over  the  1 January 2006-
31 December 2008  period,  including  aspects  covered  by  the  Directive.  The  report  on  this 
matter  will  be 
to  Article 17(3)  of 
Directive 2008/1/EC.  

institutions  pursuant 

transmitted 

the  other 

to 

In  these  conditions,  the  Commission  considered  that  this  Report  should  be  limited  to  an 
examination  of  the  application  and  effectiveness  of  Article 2,  since  those  points  concerning 
EIA were reviewed in the Report of 23 July 20095 and those relating to IPPC are due to be 
assessed  in  a  future  report.  This  Report  will  also  examine  the  issues  of  the  necessity  or 
appropriateness of submitting proposals for amendments and the possibility of extending the 
scope of the Directive to plans and programmes other than the ones provided for in Annex I. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

the  Commission  on 

Convention on  access  to  information,  public  participation  in  decision-making  and  access  to  justice  in 
environmental  matters.  Following  Council  Decision 2005/370/EC  of  17 February 2005,  OJ L 124, 
17.5.2005, the EU has been a party to the Convention since 17 May 2005.  
Report  from 
COM(2009) 378 of 23 July 2009.  
Directive  2008/1/EC  of  15 January 2008  concerning  integrated  pollution  prevention  and  control 
(codified version), OJ L 24, 29.1.2008.  
Commission  Decision  of  2 March 2006  establishing  a  questionnaire 
Directive 96/61/EC (2006/194/EC), OJ L 70, 9.3.2006, p. 65.  
The  following  items  of  the  Report  of  23 July 2009  concern  public  participation  in  EIA  (namely 
Article 3 of Directive 2003/35/EC): Sections 2.2 and 3.3 and Annex 2. 

the  application  and  effectiveness  of 

the  EIA  Directive, 

to  Council 

relating 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
2. 

SCOPE OF THE DIRECTIVE AS COVERED BY THIS REPORT, NAMELY ARTICLE 2 
CONCERNING CERTAIN PLANS AND PROGRAMMES RELATING TO THE ENVIRONMENT 

Article 2 of the Directive aims to give full effect to Article 7 of the Aarhus Convention. Thus, 
it  stipulates  inter  alia  that  'Member  States  shall  ensure  that  the  public  is  given  early  and 
effective  opportunities  to  participate  in  the  preparation  and  modification  or  review  of  the 
plans  or  programmes  required  to  be  drawn  up  under  the  provisions  listed  in  Annex  I'.  By 
virtue of paragraphs 4 and 5 of Article 2, the rules established by it do not apply to plans and 
programmes  designed  for  the  sole  purpose  of  national  defence  or  taken  in  case  of  civil 
emergencies (paragraph 4) or to plans and programmes set out in Annex I for which a public 
participation  procedure  is  carried  out  under  Directive 2001/42/EC  or  Directive 2000/60/EC 
(paragraph 5). 

Subject to the above exemptions, Article 2, according to Annex I to the Directive as worded 
in 2003, concerned the plans and programmes referred to in: 

- Article 7(1) of Directive 75/442/EEC on waste; 

-  Article 6  of  Directive 91/157/EEC  on  batteries  and  accumulators  containing  certain 
dangerous substances; 

- Article 5(1) of Directive 91/676/EEC concerning the protection of waters against pollution 
caused by nitrates from agricultural sources; 

- Article 6(1) of Directive 91/689/EEC on hazardous waste; 

- Article 14 of Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste; 

- Article 8(1) of Directive 96/62/EC on ambient air quality assessment and management. 

Nonetheless, on the one hand, certain acts have been consolidated for the sake of clarity and 
rationality  and,  on  the  other,  certain  directives  have  been  amended  in  order  to  enhance 
environmental protection.  

As a result of the legislative changes that have taken place, the plans and programmes which 
are or will be affected by Article 2 of the Directive are the following: 

-  from  12 December 2010,  the  waste-management  plans  referred  to  in  Article 28  of 
Directive 2008/98/EC6; 
to  Article 41,  Directives 2006/12/EC  (itself 
codifying Directive 75/442/EEC) and 91/689/EEC will only be repealed with effect from that 
date; until then, the plans referred to under Article 7 of Directive 2006/12/EC and Article 6 of 
Directive 91/689/EEC are subject to these provisions; 

indeed,  pursuant 

- the action programmes provided for by Article 5(1) of Directive 91/676/EEC concerning the 
protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources; 

6 

EN 

Directive 2008/98/EC  of  19 November 2008  on  waste  and  repealing  certain  directives,  OJ L 312, 
22.11.2008,  p.  3.  Recital 40  expressly 
required  by 
refers 
Directive 2003/35/EC. 

the  public  participation 

to 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
- from 11 June 2010, the air-quality plans referred to in Article 23 of Directive 2008/50/EC7; 
indeed, pursuant to Article 31 of that Directive, Directive 96/62/EC will only be repealed with 
effect from that date; until then, the plans referred to in Article 8(3) of Directive 96/62/EC are 
governed by this Directive. 

As for the management plans referred to in Article 14 of Directive 94/62/EC8, in view of the 
fact that 'a specific chapter on the management of packaging and packaging waste, including 
measures taken pursuant to Articles 4 and 5' must be included in the waste-management plans 
drawn up pursuant to Article 7 of Directive 75/442/EEC (now 2006/12/EC) and which will be 
replaced 
in  Article 28  of 
Directive 2008/98/CE, public participation in this area takes place within the context of plans.  

from  12 December 2010  by 

the  plans 

referred 

to 

Unlike  Article 6  of  Directive 91/157/EEC,  which  expressly  provided  for  plans  drawn  up  by 
Member  States,  Directive 2006/66/EC9 
from 
26 September 2008  took  a  different  approach  to  achieve  the  goals  set  out,  namely  that  of 
voluntary  agreements  between  the  competent  authorities  and  economic  operators  concerned 
(Article 27). It is only in the event of non-compliance with the agreements that Member States 
are  obliged  to  take  the  necessary  action  through  legislative,  regulatory  or  administrative 
measures.  The  programmes  initially  provided  for  in  Directive 91/157/EEC  have  therefore 
ceased to exist. 

that  Directive  with  effect 

repealing 

3. 

INFORMATION DERIVING FROM EXPERIENCE ACQUIRED 

Information  concerning  the  application  of  Article 2  derives  both  from  the  experience  of  the 
Commission itself and from the reports requested from Member States10, despite the fact that 
such reports were not anticipated in the Directive. 

•  Transposition of the Directive, in particular Article 2 

At the time of this Report's adoption, all Member States which responded had transposed into 
domestic  law  —  and  sometimes  at  the  regional  level  as  well  (Belgium  and  Austria) —  the 
Directive,  and  in  particular  its  Article 2.  Some  Member  States,  notably  France,  the  Czech 
Republic  and  Belgium,  transposed,  at  least  in  part,  Article 2  with  the  adoption  of  the  acts 
transposing  Directive 2001/42/EC11,  more  commonly  known  as  the  Strategic  Environmental 
Assessment (SEA) Directive. Moreover, among the seven States which did not respond, only 

7 
8 

9 

10 

11 

Directive 2008/50/EC of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality, OJ L 152, 11.6.2008, p. 1. 
Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1882/2003, 
Directives 2004/12/EC and 2005/50/EC and recently by Regulation (EC) No 219/2009.  
Directive 2006/66/EC  of  6 September 2006  on  batteries  and  accumulators  and  waste  batteries  and 
accumulators  and  repealing  Directive 91/157/EEC,  OJ L 266,  26.9.2006.  Pursuant  to  Article 28, 
Directive 91/157/EEC was repealed with effect from 26 September 2008. 
Unlike  Directive 2003/4/EC  aimed  at  adapting  Community  legislation  to  the  Aarhus  Convention  in 
terms of public access to environmental information, the Directive does not expressly provide for the 
submission  of  reports  by  Member  States  to  the  Commission  on  their  experience  in  applying  the 
Directive.  However,  the  Commission  held  it  necessary  to  be  able  to  draw  on  their  information  and 
views.  Thus  by  letter  dated  29 July 2008,  it  asked  States  to  submit  their  comments  on  the  basis  of  a 
guidance  note.  Twenty  States  responded,  some  of  them  significantly  after  the  deadline  of 
14 November 2008. The seven States which failed to submit a contribution were: Finland, Ireland, Italy, 
Luxembourg, Portugal, Slovenia and Slovakia.  
Directive 2001/42/EC of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes 
on the environment (OJ L 197, 21.7.2001, p. 30).  

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Ireland had yet to transpose the Directive in full into its domestic law12. That is not the case, 
however, for Article 2. 

The conclusion can thus be drawn that all Member States have taken the measures necessary 
to transpose Article 2 into their national legal systems. 

•  Experience acquired by the Commission in the application of Article 2 

Following  the  legislative  changes  made  after  the  adoption  of  the  Directive13,  the  plans  and 
programmes have concerned and will concern from end-2010 in particular waste-management 
and air-quality plans. In view of their nature and scope the SEA Directive might appear to be 
a more suitable instrument in reality than Article 2 for dealing with these matters, including 
the  public  participation  aspect.  Moreover,  in  its  Article 6,  the  SEA  Directive  provides  for 
public  participation  on  a  scale  comparable  to  that  of  Article 2  of  the  Directive.  A  similar 
consideration emerges from the experience acquired in some States. At this stage, this is no 
more than a trend. The future will tell whether this trend is built upon and becomes a general 
practice. 

The  relationship  between  action  programmes  concerning  the  protection  of  waters  against 
nitrate  pollution  and  the  SEA  Directive,  particularly  its  Article 3,  was  raised  by  Belgium's 
Council  of  State14  in  two  identical  requests  for  a  preliminary  ruling.  At  the  time  of  this 
Report's adoption, these cases, concerning the nitrogen-management programme approved by 
the Walloon Region in its decree of 15 February 2007 were still before the Court of Justice.  

The  information  available  to  the  Commission  was  supplemented  by  the  reports  requested 
from  all  States.  The  contributions  from  the  20 States  which  responded  were  based  on  a 
guidance note appended to the letter from the Commission dated 29 July 2008. The standard 
of information and amount of detail in these contributions differed considerably. In analysing 
them,  the  Commission  followed  to  the  layout  of  its  own  guidance  note.  In  addition,  it  took 
into account contacts with both national experts and NGOs for the seven States which did not 
respond. The comments made by the States which did answer its letter did not differ markedly 
from  the  information  which  the  Commission  obtained  for  the  seven  States  which  did  not 
reply. 

Two  aspects  of  the  experience  at  the  national  level  warrant  emphasis:  the  positive  and 
negative effects of application of the Directive and its effective use. 

- Positive and negative effects of application of the Directive 

Numerous States pointed out that, thanks to rules regarding public participation, the standard 
of information acquired by the public on environmental issues, including those linked to plans 
and programmes, had been raised significantly. The greater sensitivity of officials responsible 
for drafting plans or programmes and of the political authorities responsible for adopting them 

12 
13 
14 

Judgment of the Court of 16 July 2009, case C-427/07. 
Those changes were addressed in Section 2.  
Joined Cases C-105/09 and C-110/09, pending. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
with  respect  to  the  need  to  seek  the  public's  opinion  before  approving  them  was  also 
perceptible. Greater effort might, however, prove necessary on the part of local authorities.  

With greater awareness of the issues and the stakes, consulting the public had facilitated the 
application  of  the  measures  adopted  and  instilled  more  confidence  in  the  institutions 
concerned. In some instances, public comments had led to alterations to the project initially 
planned and the removal or mitigation of elements which caused concern to the populations 
affected.  On  occasions,  thanks  to  consultation,  the  public  authorities  were  made  aware  of 
areas where action was deemed to be a priority by civil society and took account of it when 
redefining priorities.  

Certain  comments  indicate  that  the  participation  of  individuals  who  are  not  linked  to 
associations  is  more  limited,  even  on  strategic  projects15.  This  could,  according  to  one 
contribution, be tied to the fact that 'the majority of the general public' still does not know that 
it can take part in the consultations. In several States, efforts have been made to inform the 
public of its rights and to publicise as widely as possible — including in the local media, if 
appropriate — the consultations due to take place in the following weeks.  

Certain  contributions  attest  to  the  fact  that  organising  consultations  involves  providing 
adequate  financial  and human resources, with, for instance, a view to analysing the public's 
comments. 

In  a  few  Member  States,  either  legislation  for  or  an  established  practice  of  public 
consultations existed long before the Directive, hence the Directive has not given rise to any 
major effects or changes, at least for plans and programmes. In any event, the Directive has 
ensured that  the public's  right to take part in the decision-making process on environmental 
matters has been firmly and clearly established and, in some cases, more securely entrenched. 

At  a  different  level,  the  contributions  received  also  emphasised  what  were  felt  to  be  less 
positive aspects. Thus, it was noted that: 

- in certain cases, the public asked the authorities for information, data or documents which 
were not relevant to the consultations under way; 

- in several instances, it was difficult to assess properly the opinions expressed due to the lack 
of appropriate documentation supporting them; 

- for large-scale plans (in this case, nationwide waste-management plans in two States), public 
participation  led,  in  one  instance,  to  a  considerable  workload  and  difficulties  in  finding  a 
solution  acceptable  to  everyone,  or  most  persons  concerned,  thereby  significantly  delaying 
approval of the plan; in the other case, additional delays due to public participation meant that 
certain data were out of date. Nonetheless, these two cases do not appear to reflect ordinary 
circumstances. 

•  Effective use of Article 2 

15 

One  contribution  states  in  this  respect:  'The  persons  who  respond  are  those  who  already  possess  the 
greatest  awareness  of  environmental  issues.  To  resolve  this,  the  (Brussels  Capital)  Region  has,  in 
addition  to  public  inquiries,  ventured  as  far  as  possible  to  carry  out  specific  opinion  polls  using  a 
representative sample of the population'. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Generally, the evidence suggests very limited use of Article 2. This might be attributable to 
the relatively short period between the final date of transposition (25 June 2005) and the date 
selected  for  reporting  on  the  experience  acquired  by  States  (31 May 2008).  Another 
explanation put forward by certain States lies in the fact that the consultations referred to in 
Article 2 are carried out in the broader framework of Directive 2001/42/EC. 

The contributions did not mention any particular difficulties (of interpretation or otherwise) of 
a significant nature.  

As for other considerations regarding its application, the following points were raised: 

- in order to obtain as broad and as active participation as possible, in addition to publication 
in  official  journals  and  the  press,  a  more  proactive  approach  (through  meetings,  letters, 
seminars)  should  be  followed,  aimed  at  the  public  and  private  associations  likely  to  be 
interested; 

- the public should be informed of the approval or rejection of the opinions expressed and the 
reasons justifying their acceptance or refusal, before the final decision is adopted; to this end, 
amendments to Article 2(2)(c) and (d) were suggested in the contribution from one State; 

-  participation  in  consultations  might  be  affected  by  the  fact  that  the  public  does  not  know 
how its answers will be taken into account in the final decision or that it has the feeling that 
they will not really be taken into account.  

4. 

THE COMMISSION'S ASSESSMENT 

•  Effectiveness of Article 2 

Generally, the Commission is of the opinion that, thanks to Article 2: 

-  the  decision-making  process  has  become  more  transparent,  by  giving  rise  to  a  more 
constructive  climate  of  relations  and  greater  confidence  between  the  authorities  responsible 
and civil society; 

- the decisions adopted take more account of the needs and concerns of a greater proportion of 
the population and their acceptance and implementation is thus facilitated; 

- society's increased awareness of and interest in environmental issues in the specific themes 
addressed  (particularly  waste  management  and  water  quality)  have  come  to  the  fore, 
especially at the regional and local levels; the case of the preliminary ruling before the Court 
of  Justice  concerning  the  action  programme  for  the  protection  of  waters  from  pollution  by 
nitrates drawn up by the Walloon Region constitutes a significant example. 

Admittedly,  public  participation  implies  major  changes  for  the  authorities  concerned,  given 
that  the  decision-making  process  must  take  account  of  the  need  to  consult  the  public 
effectively at a sufficiently early stage. Adequate financial and human resources must thus be 
provided.  

It is for Member States to assess both the best moment for consultations to begin, in order for 
them  to  take  place  'when  all  options  are  open'  (as  required  by  Article 6(4)  of  the  Aarhus 
Convention, to which Article 7 of the same Convention refers), and how to ensure that they 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
are effective. In this respect, the Commission notes that the States ensure that the launch of 
consultations  is  really  made  known  to  the  public,  particularly  the  section  of  the  population 
concerned. Indeed, the apparent trend is not merely that of publication in official journals, but 
of  supporting  that  by  information  in  the  media  (both  printed  and  broadcast),  posters  in  the 
municipalities  concerned and  notices on the websites of  the authorities responsible. It is for 
States  to  decide  whether,  as  one  contribution  suggested,  an  even  more  proactive  publicity 
approach,  using  individual  letters,  meetings  and  seminars,  aimed  at  the  public  or  private 
associations  likely  to  be  interested,  proves  necessary  or  appropriate.  The  Commission  notes 
that such an approach may turn out to be useful in involving a greater number of citizens and 
NGOs in the consultations.  

It  was  said  that  a  large  part  of  civil  society  still  does  not  take  part  in  consultations,  even  if 
they then express reservations when the final decision is adopted. This phenomenon may, in 
part, depend on the fact that the public does not know how its representations will be taken 
into  account  in  the  final  decision.  In  this  respect,  the  Commission  encourages  States  to 
explain  as  clearly  as  possible  the  reasons  which  prompted  them  to  reject  in  part  or  in  full 
certain  suggestions.  Appropriate  feedback  seems  to  be  one  of  the  keys  to  effective  public 
participation and fostering greater confidence. At this stage, it is not considered necessary to 
amend 2(2)(c) and (d), as was suggested by one contribution. 

The  Commission  is  aware  of  the  fact  that  the  consultation  process  can  prolong,  sometimes 
significantly,  the  timescales  anticipated  for  the final  adoption  of  plans  or  programmes.  This 
increase in duration does not appear to depend on the time allotted for consultations as such, 
but  on  the  nature  of  the  project  anticipated,  especially  when  it  gives  rise  to  protests  by  or 
concerns within civil society. Appropriate public consultations, as early as the planning stage, 
make plans more socially acceptable and remove or limit later obstacles, such as court action, 
thus  facilitating  implementation.  The  positive  aspects  arising  from  public  participation  thus 
appear to outweigh the negative ones. The question of longer timescales occurred more or less 
explicitly in numerous contributions and appears to be a matter to which more attention must 
be  given  in  the  future.  Greater  experience  acquired  in  applying  the  Directive  could  make  it 
possible  to  arrive  at  concrete  solutions  which  ensure  a  better  balance  between  public 
participation and a legitimate concern for efficacy. 

States must continue their efforts to inform the public of the rights and guarantees upheld by 
the Directive at whichever level is regarded as most appropriate, bearing in mind the structure 
and traditions of each country. The will to do so is apparent in several contributions. But this 
task is not one for the States alone. The NGOs themselves can make an effective contribution 
by circulating the information. 

•  Proposed amendments 

In view of the limited experience acquired with Article 2, it does not seem appropriate, at this 
stage, to propose amendments. 

In the comments above, the Commission has expressed some considerations which might help 
to  enhance  the  effectiveness  of  the  Directive.  Given  that  the  precise  conditions  of  public 
participation  are  for  each  State  to  determine,  while  taking  account  of  its  structure  and 
traditions, it will be for Member States to judge whether such considerations are relevant to 
the reality of each country, whether their implementation proves practicable and, if so, how. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
The actual application of Article 2 by States and the practical solutions found to limit certain 
factors viewed as less positive could, in the future, point to the need or advantage of making 
amendments. 

•  Extending  the  scope  of  Article 2  to  plans  or  programmes  other  than  those  indicated  in 

Annex I 

No  Member  State  regarded  such  an  extension  as  either  necessary  or  appropriate.  Certain 
States, however, indicated that a clear vision of the scope of the list of plans and programmes 
falling within Directive 2001/42/EC was needed, before entertaining the idea of adding other 
plans and programmes to the scope of Article 2. In other words, certain contributions called 
for a thorough examination  of  the  relationship between Article 2 and Directive 2001/42/EC. 
One  contribution  added  that,  when  Directive 2003/35/EC  was  adopted,  the  list  of  plans  and 
programmes provided in Annex I was, in the opinion of the authors, drafted as an exhaustive 
list,  since  public  participation  in  new  plans  and  programmes  was  to  be  addressed  in  new 
specific instruments, in order to comply with the Aarhus Convention. This argument seems to 
be based on the tenth recital of the Directive. 

The  Commission  acknowledges  that,  in  a  number  of  instances,  a  single  situation  could  be 
subject  to  both  Directives,  a  possibility  which  appears  to  be  more  frequent  with  respect  to 
waste,  particularly  the  future  plans  referred  to  in  Article 28  of  Directive 2008/98/EC.  The 
Community legislature itself noticed the possible overlaps to the extent that, by paragraph 5, it 
ruled  out  the  application  of  Article 2  if  public  participation  was  already  carried  out  under 
Directive 2001/42/EC.  Further,  the  future  ruling  of  the  Court  of  Justice  on  the  relationship 
existing between the action programmes for the protection of waters from pollution by nitrates 
and the SEA Directive will constitute a major key to analyse this issue. 

In addition, in the Implementation Guide for the Aarhus Convention16 it is indicated: 'Thus, 
proper public  participation procedures  in  the context  of strategic  environmental assessment 
(SEA)  is  one  method  of  implementing  article 7…  SEA  provides  public  authorities  with  a 
process  for  integrating  the  consideration  of  environmental  impacts  into  the  development  of 
plans,  programmes  and  policies.  It  is,  therefore,  one  possible  implementation  method  that 
would apply to both parts of article 7 — the provisions covering public participation in plans 
and programmes, and the provision covering public participation in policies'.  

The  Commission  presented  a  Report  concerning  the  application  and  effectiveness  of 
Directive 2001/42/EC,  the  SEA  Directive17.  It  undertakes  to  engage  in  such  analysis,  either 
through  possible  follow-up  resulting  from  the  assessment  of  the  Report  by  the  other 
institutions or by way of specific action. Its conclusions will be duly made known to the other 
institutions, accompanied, if necessary, by appropriate proposals. 

It follows from this that any proposal to enlarge the scope of Article 2 would, at this stage, be 
premature. 

16 

17 

The Aarhus Convention — An Implementation Guide, UN, New York and Geneva, 2000. It is not an 
official interpretation of the Convention.  
Report  from  the  Commission  on  the  application  and  effectiveness  of  the  EIA  Directive,  COM(2009) 
469 of 14.9.2009. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                 
5. 

CONCLUSION 

Despite distinctly limited application at the national level in the three years which followed 
the deadline for transposition by Member States (25 June 2005), Article 2 of the Directive has 
had  the  effect  of  firmly  establishing  the  right  of  the  public  to  participate  in  the 
decision-making  process  on  plans  and  programmes  uniformly  in  the  legislation  of  Member 
States. This has kindled the public's interest in environmental issues, which has increasingly 
taken account — at least among those people and bodies with the greatest awareness — of the 
sustainable development dimension. The efforts made must be sustained in order to enhance 
the  public's  knowledge  of  its  rights  and  to  achieve  real  participation  by  a  larger  number  of 
people in consultations. It will be for each State, in view of its specificities and traditions, to 
attain  these  objectives  by  the  most  suitable  means.  They  will  also  have  to  ensure  that  they 
provide the human and financial resources which the effective implementation of this article 
implies. 

In  view  of  this  situation,  the  Commission  does  not  deem  it  appropriate  to  propose 
amendments or extensions to the scope of Article 2 to other plans and programmes than those 
currently subject to it. However, given the interrelation which may exist between this article 
and  Directive 2001/42/EC,  it  will  conduct  the  examination  suggested  by  some  States  with 
respect  to  these  two  instruments  and  the  results  will,  in  due  time,  be  presented  to  the  other 
institutions.  

EN 

10 

   EN