Řídící výbor EEB přijal dne 3. března následující stanovisko, na kterém se podíleli také naši členové:

EEB důrazně odsuzuje invazi Ruské federace na Ukrajinu, která byla zahájena 24. února 2022. Tento útok je nepřijatelným porušením mezinárodního práva a porušením Charty OSN, která požaduje, aby se její členské státy zdržely použití síly proti územní celistvosti a politické nezávislosti jakéhokoli státu. Ostře odsuzujeme neomluvitelné útoky na civilní obyvatelstvo a civilní infrastrukturu. Invaze je nevyprovokovaná a neodůvodněná.

Brusel 21. 3. 2017. Patnáctka bývalých evropských komisařů, ministrů, vědců a další osobností vyzvala EU, aby věnovala významně větší pozornost problematice životního prostředí. Celou výzvu si můžete v anličtině přečíst zde. Mezi signatáři jsou také bývalí čeští ministři Bedřich Moldan a Peter Kalaš.

EEB vydalo zajímavou publikaci "Reforming Europe towards Sustainability", ve které můžete najít zajímavé podklady o historii jednotlivých strategií udržitelného rozvoje EU, strategii EU2020, důvody pro nutnost transformace směrem k udržitelnosti a některé myšlenky pro projednávanou Agendu udržitelného rozvoje 2030. Celou publikaci si můžete stáhnout zde.

 

Dvě nové studie, zveřejněné 12. listopadu 2015,  financované EEB, ukazují na alarmující stav evropské orné půdy a ukazují, že díky malým ambicím jednotlivých členských států nedochází při reformě společné zemědělské politiky (CAP) k lepšímu přístupu k životnímu prostředí.

Po roce fungování začíná Evropské komise v čele s panem Junckerem chápat, že nejsou důležitější záležitosti, než je ochrana našeho životního prostřed.  Právě zveřejnění Pracovní program Evropské komise pro rok 2016 je velmi daleko od dokonalosti, ale při jeho čtení vidíme jasné náznaky, že životní prostředí již není Komisí ignorováno, jak to bylo v loňském roce. Vítáme úsilí na podporu oběhové hospodářství, novou politickou vizi podpory Cílů udržitelného rozvoje (SDGs) , podporu Pařížské klimatické dohody i upřednostňování úspor energie. Tyto priority ale musí nyní vést také k celkovému přepracování původních 10 politických priorit Junckerovy komise a také k jejich legislativnímu zakotvení. Potřebujeme novou reformní agendu, kde životní prostředí a výhody, které přináší pro lidi, planetu a prosperitu nehrají druhé housle za ekonomickými zájmy, jako tomu bylo během posledních 12 měsíců.

Celý text tiskové zprávy European Environmental Bureau najdete zde.

Jedenáct evropských ministrů životního prostředí, včetně ministrů z Německa a Francie,  zaslalo novému předsedovi Evropské komise dopis, ve kterém ho vyzývá, aby Komise pokračovala ve schvalování legislativy na ochranu ovzduší (tzv. air package) a odpadové legislativy (waste package), navržené již předchozí komisí.

Otevřený dopis koalice G-10 – skupiny deseti sítí environmentálních nevládních organizací aktivních na úrovni EU

EEB připravilo, jako po konci každého předsednictví,, také po ukončení českého předsednictví EU jeho hodnocení z hlediska životního prostředí. Zelený kruh připravil překlad tohoto hodnocení. Když porovnáme toto hodnocení s tím, které dostalo předešlé, francouzské předsednictví, dopadla Česká republika docela dobře.

Nová studie, zveřejněná dnes, ukazuje, že navrhované závazné minimum EU na recyklaci ve výši 50 % pro komunální odpad, diskutované v současné době v Evropském parlamentu může snížit emise až o 89 milionů tun CO2 ekvivalentu za rok. Více v původní tiskové zprávě EEB (anglicky).

EU needs waste prevention and recycling targets to help the climate

Brussels, 14th February 2008
A new study, released today [1], shows that the proposed binding minimum EU recycling targets of 50% for municipal waste [2] by 2020, currently discussed by the European Parliament, could save emissions equivalent to more than 89 million tonnes (mt) of CO2 equivalent per year. This is equivalent to taking 31 million cars off the road. The study builds on a UK report [3] which found that most studies showed that recycling was better for the climate than incineration.

Dr Michael Warhurst of Friends of the Earth Europe said:
"Recycling our waste helps to tackle climate change, and targets are the best way to make sure recycling really happens across Europe. This study shows the massive potential benefits from targets for municipal waste. Friends of the Earth believes it is crucial that targets for business waste are also agreed, as these will also have massive benefits, and we all need to do our bit."
The study also calculates the climate benefits of waste prevention, and finds that if waste volumes were stabilised at 2006 levels, a total of 1.1 billion tonnes of CO2 equivalents would be saved by 2020.
Nathalie Cliquot of EEB said:

"This study provides further evidence that we must make waste prevention a reality, as it has the potential to save significant quantities of climate-changing emissions, not to mention avoiding environmental damage in the use of natural resources. The European Parliament has already supported a target to stabilise waste production across the EU at 2008 levels by 2012 - they must not let EU Governments dodge this crucial issue."

The new research is released exactly a year after the European Parliament voted in its first reading for the following binding EU targets for prevention and recycling:

1. Stabilisation of total waste generation in each EU country at 2008 levels by 2012
2. A minimum recycling rate of 50% for municipal waste by 2020, with the option of a 5-year delay for those countries with very low recycling rates.
3. A minimum recycling rate of 70% for industrial, commercial, construction and demolition wastes by 2020.

EU Governments have ignored the European Parliament's vote in their first reading Common position, and the second reading is now starting with recycling targets as one of the main issues of negotiation. Five EU countries have already achieved the 50% recycling rate for municipal solid waste, with others having set similar targets, demonstrating that this target really is achievable.

For further information please contact:

Dr A. Michael Warhurst, Waste & Resources Campaign, Friends of the Earth Europe
Mobile:  +44 7841 503 474; Email: Tato e-mailová adresa je chráněna před spamboty. Pro její zobrazení musíte mít povolen Javascript.

Doreen Fedrigo, Policy Coordinator, European Environmental Bureau
Tel: +32 2289 1304; Email: Tato e-mailová adresa je chráněna před spamboty. Pro její zobrazení musíte mít povolen Javascript.

Vanessa Bulkacz, Press & Publications Officer, European Environmental Bureau
 Tel: +32 (0)2 289 1309; Email: Tato e-mailová adresa je chráněna před spamboty. Pro její zobrazení musíte mít povolen Javascript.

Francesca Gater, Communications Officer, Friends of the Earth Europe
Tel: +32 25 42 61 05; Email: Tato e-mailová adresa je chráněna před spamboty. Pro její zobrazení musíte mít povolen Javascript.

Notes

For a more detailed analysis of the review of the Waste Framework Directive, see our policy briefing and web sites:
http://www.foeeurope.org/publications/2007/FoEE_EEB_WasteBrief_Sep07.pdf
http://www.foeeurope.org/activities/waste_management/
http://www.eeb.org/activities/waste/Index.htm
[1] "Climate Protection Potentials of EU Recycling Targets", Knut Sander (Ökopol Gmbh), commissioned by the European Environmental Bureau and Friends of the Earth Europe. http://www.eeb.org/publication/documents/RecyclingClimateChangePotentials.pdf
The method used in the study released today was developed by the UK Government-funded Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP), adding up the climate benefits of recycling different waste streams based on a detailed review of life cycle assessments. Key climate benefits of recycling (including composting) are avoiding extraction and processing of materials (such as aluminium) and avoiding landfill of wastes that break down into the global warming gas methane. The study also examined the impact of a 65% recycling target - closer to the rate currently achieved by countries with the most effective recycling - and found that emissions of over 145 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent could be saved over today's average recycling rate in Europe.
[2] Municipal waste is waste from households, as well as other similar waste.
[3] "Environmental Benefits of Recycling:

Evropská federace nevládních ekologických organizací EEB se obrátila dopisem na portugalské předsednictví EU s žádostí k přijetí konkretních patření pro řádnou implementaci Strategie udržitelného rozvoje EU.

Tisková zpráva EEB: Is the Sustainable Development Strategy Under-Developed?

(Brussels, 22 November, 2007) - In a letter addressed to the Portuguese Presidency, the European Environmental Bureau (EEB) [1] has called upon current EU Presidency to make the most of their final month of leadership by adopting concrete benchmarks for improving performance on the EU Sustainable Development Strategy (SDS) [2]. The European Commission recently released a progress report on the strategy [3] which acknowledges a lack of progress on its implementation, but offers no concrete proposals for positive change.

John Hontelez, EEB Secretary General, said, "The messages of the Commission's SDS progress report, although based on an impressive amount of work by Commission and Member States, are very disappointing and a missed opportunity to challenge the European Council and Member States to finally make a move towards sustainable development."

The EEB has prepared a position paper on the 2007 EU SDS progress report,[4] the main points of which have been outlined by John Hontelez in his letter to the Portuguese Presidency. The EEB's letter delineates several key areas set forth as requirements of the EU SDS that have not yet been achieved and require immediate action, including:

- phasing out harmful environmental subsidies;
- reforming environmental taxation, which was recognized by the SDS as necessary to reconcile environmental protection and smart economic growth;
- reducing the environmental impact of transport, now increasingly contributing to climate change; and
- halting the decline of biodiversity by 2010, which will require policies to limit urban sprawl and transport infrastructure, adapt to climate change, and move to cleaner agricultural practices.

The EEB also called upon the Presidency to achieve the following urgent goals related to successful implementation of the SDS, including:

- an effective programme to achieve sustainable production and consumption patterns. The EEB calls for an ambitious Commission Action Plan on this topic, which has an expected release date of early 2008;
- concretely addressing the Lisbon strategy and working on the basis of relevant conclusions of the June Environmental Council on ecological industrial innovation;
- setting the EU SDS as the lead framework for determining future EU Budgets; and
- recognising positive national developments that contribute to (the mobilisation of the public for) sustainable development and promote them for wider use

Notes for editors:

[1] The EEB is a federation of over 145 environmental citizens' organisations based in EU Member States and most accession countries. The main aim of the EEB is to protect and improve the environmental of Europe and to promote knowledge and understanding of EU environmental and sustainable development policies amongst the general public in the EU to enable them to play their part in achieving that goal.

[2] Council of the European Union. June 2006. Review of the EU Sustainable Development Strategy (EU SDS) Renewed Strategy. Document number 10117/06.

[3] Commission of the European Communities. October 2007. Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament. Progress Report on the Sustainable Development Strategy 2007.

[4] EEB, November 18, 2007. EEB response to the Progress Report on the Sustainable Development Strategy 2007.

"CAP Health Check: Is there a doctor in the house?"

Reacting to the Commission's Communication 'Towards a CAP Health Check' published today, the European Environmental Bureau (EEB) expressed its disappointment about the weak sign of the Commission's intention to use this Health Check as an opportunity to turn the CAP into a more effective instrument for improving the environmental performance of farming.

Agriculture's environmental impacts are well-known and widely recognised, particularly in discussions on climate change and biodiversity. Last week's, IPCC final synthesis report on climate change [1] stated that "it is very likely that observed increase in methane concentration is predominantly due to agriculture and fossil fuel use". The policy changes proposed by IPCC echo those from a biodiversity angle in the 2005 UN's Millennium Ecosystem Assessment [2]. The message there was very clear: if we are to meet the challenges posed to us by the loss of biodiversity and ecosystems, we need to radically change our agricultural practices and policies.

John Hontelez, Secretary General of the EEB said: "There is overwhelming scientific evidence and policy analysis available on the need for further reforming our agriculture policies and practices. It is therefore disappointing that the Commission seems to shy away from a further reform of such a key policy area as agriculture. Instead of making progress on this much needed reform path, the Commission's main priority seems to be to maintain the status quo."

One fundamental problem of the current status quo is that the majority of Europe's agriculture budget is spent on payments to farmers handed out on the basis of amount of food produced with no direct relation to the environmental performance of the farmer. The only condition is that environmental legislation is respected. The EEB believes that there is a strong case for public payments for well-defined public goods [3] and services provided by farmers and landowners. The challenges posed by climate change and biodiversity only reinforce this case. Redirecting subsidies flows to those farmers who actually deliver public services would also address one of the CAP's perhaps most threatening illnesses: the total lack of legitimacy for the current direct payment scheme.

John Hontelez continued: The case for a fundamental reform of agriculture policy is clear. At the very least we expect this CAP Health Check to be used as an opportunity to start a public discussion about such a reform, including what the objectives of such a new CAP policy should be and what kind of instruments need to play a role."

In addition, the EEB stresses the need to tackle a number of issues of more immediate concern. Most importantly, the Commission should carry out an evaluation of the effectiveness of the cross-compliance system [4] for protecting the environment, rather then focussing only on simplifying the system. Although the Commission rightly identifies the need to replace the environmental benefits stemming from the compulsory set aside system with an alternative, the EEB believes this alternative should also be a compulsory system, rather then a voluntary scheme under rural development programmes.

For further information contact:

Pieter de Pous, EEB policy officer  +32 2 289 13 06 

_ _ _ _ _ _ _

[1] Inter Governmental Panel on Climate Change < Summary for Policymakers of the Synthesis Report of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, draft copy of 16 November 2007

[2] The Millenium Ecosystem Assessment, published in 2005 and commissioned by the UN, represents a global scientific consensus on the current state of our ecosystems and the services they provide. It outlines a number of policy options to address the decline of ecosystems. Reform of agricultural policies is one of them.

[3] An example of 'public goods' is the provision of environmental services which go beyond regulatory requirements, the maintenance of attractive landscapes as well as social goals such as maintaining the quality of life in rural areas.

[4] Under cross-compliance farmers failing to meet regulatory requirements in the field of environment, health and animal welfare may lose some or all of the subsidies they receive. Cross-compliance became mandatory only in 2005 for some laws and has so far only been assessed on its impact on administration and bureaucracy, not on whether it has achieved what it was designed to achieve: better protection of the environment.

John Hontelez, generální sekretář EEB připravil zhodnocení dopadů návrhu Reformní smlouvy na environmentální legislativu a životní prostředí. Reformní smlouva nebude rušit stávající smlouvy (Smlouva o EU a Smlouva o fungování ES), jak měla Ústavní smlouva, ale bude je pouze v několika ohledech upravovat.

Obecné závěry: Nová reformní smlouva není s ohledem na ochranu životního prostředí krokem zpět, obsahuje některé pozitivní novinky, které by měly zvýšit transparentnost rozhodování. Přináší také nový samostatný článek dotýkající se energetické politiky. Bohužel však neruší ani jakkoli nemění smlouvu o Euratom. Významným prvkem nové reformní smlouvy je posílení role Evropského parlamentu i národních parlamentů. EP bude nově rozhodovat ve spolurozhodovací proceduře s Radou v oblastech zemědělství, rybolovu, obchodu se třetími zeměmi a v oblasti služeb. Národní parlamenty budou moci nově zpochybňovat uplatňování principu subsidiarity. Obecně by mělo platit, že pokud nadpoloviční většina národních parlamentů shledá, že připravovaná legislativa není ve shodě s principem subsidiarity, musí Komise svůj návrh přehodnotit. Fakticky to bude znamenat jeho odmítnutí, protože pak bude velmi nepravděpodobné, ža takový návrh získá podporu v Radě. Toto posílení role národních parlamentů může podle Johna Honteleze vést ke zvýšení zájmu veřejnosti, médií a politiků o politiku EU zejména v oblasti životního prostředí a udržitelného rozvoje.

Více podrobněji v přiloženém draftu hodnocení....

__________________________________________

BRIEFING DOCUMENT ON REFORM TREATY
John Hontelez, Secretary General EEB
for Green 10 and its constituencies

This paper evaluates the content of the Reform Treaty adopted by the European Council in Lisbon on the 19th October, from an environmental perspective. It makes a judgement on whether this Treaty is improving the conditions for environmentally sound sustainable development, compared with the current Treaties, as amended for the last time at the Nice Summit in 2000.

The Reform Treaty is in fact a set of amendments to the two main Treaties governing the EU: the “Treaty on European Union” (EUT) and the “Treaty establishing the European Community” (ECT). The second one will have a new name: “Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union"” (EFUT). In fact, the notion of “Community” will disappear entirely.
These amendments will enter into force after all the European Parliament and all 27 National Parliaments have ratified the Reform Treaty. However, some amendments will only enter into force at a later date, such as on the voting system in the Council of Ministers.
The Reform Treaty can be found at:
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cmsUpload/cg00001re01en.pdf
all relevant documents at:
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/cms3_fo/showPage.asp?id=1317&lang=en&mode=g

 

GENERAL CONCLUSION:
The analysis shows that by and large the Reform Treaty is no step backwards for the environment, that it includes positive elements with regards to democratization and transparency, and that it brings a new chapter on Energy policy which is written in balanced wordings. The negative element is that the Treaty fails to green the old mandates of the EU in the fields of agriculture, transport, trade, cohesion. And the fact that the Treaty does not abolish or change the Euratom Treaty is problematic as well.

The European Parliament gains co-decision powers on Common Agricultural and Fisheries policies, external trade, services, and increased control over the EU budget. This can bring benefits for environmental protection and sustainable development.

The environmental chapter now has special emphasis on climate change in the work of the EU at the global level. We have to fight for it that this does not downgrade EUs efforts in other major global environmental problems such as the deterioration of the planet’s ecosystems.

The opportunity of national parliaments to consider whether the subsidiarity principle is properly interpreted by the Commission can hopefully lead to an increased constructive interest by national politicians and media in EU policy making, in particular for environment and sustainable development. It could become an opportunity for environmental organisations to use. A special protocol annexed to the Reform Treaty is laying down the procedure. In most cases a negative position from a majority of parliaments is necessary to force the Commission to rethink its proposal, in other cases one-third or even one-fourth is enough (not touching upon the environment).

There are subtle changes in the articles related to rights of individuals to address the Court of Justice (articles 230 and 232), but these are not likely to introduce the right of environmental organisations to seek legal action against acts or non-acts of EU Institutions when this is affecting the environment (unless a direct and individual impact on the complainant can be proven).

Some relevant details:

 

1. THE OBJECTIVE OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

Currently, the both the EUT and the ECT have an introductory article about the objectives of the EU. Both mention sustainable development, but the best text is found in the ECT, as it links sustainable development clearly to “a high level of
protection and improvement of the quality of the environment”.

The Reform Treaty abolishes the relevant article from the ECT, but it replaces the current EUT article 2  with a new article 3 which includes all the major goals of the EU: The relevant parts:

Article 3

3. The Union shall establish an internal market. It shall work for the sustainable development of Europe based on balanced economic growth and price stability, a highly competitive social market economy, aiming at full employment and social progress, and a high level of protection and improvement of the quality of the environment. It shall promote scientific and technological advance.
It shall combat social exclusion and discrimination, and shall promote social justice and protection, equality between women and men, solidarity between generations and protection of the rights of the child.
It shall promote economic, social and territorial cohesion, and solidarity among Member States.
It shall respect its rich cultural and linguistic diversity, and shall ensure that Europe's cultural heritage is safeguarded and enhanced.

5. In its relations with the wider world, the Union shall uphold and promote its values and interests and contribute to the protection of its citizens. It shall contribute to peace, security, the sustainable development of the Earth, solidarity and mutual respect among peoples, free and fair trade, eradication of poverty and the protection of human rights, in particular the rights of the child, as well as to the strict observance and the development of international law, including respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter.

The current ECT text, now replaced by 3.3., is: The Community shall have as its task, by establishing a common market and an economic and monetary union and by implementing common policies or activities referred to in Articles 3 and 4, to promote throughout the Community a harmonious, balanced and  sustainable development of economic activities, a high level of employment and of social protection, equality between men and women, sustainable and non-inflationary growth, a high degree of competitiveness and convergence of economic performance, a high level of protection and improvement of the quality of the environment, the raising of the standard of living and quality of life, and economic and social cohesion and solidarity among Member States”.

COMMENT: The new text does keep the clear demand for ambitious and progressive environmental policies, and is by and large comparable with the ECT art. 2.
Interesting, the notion of “a high degree of competitiveness” is replaced with “a competitive social market economy”. On the other hand the notions of ”the raising of the standard of living and quality of life” does not figure anymore in the text in this wording.

 

2. ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY INTEGRATION AND CONSISTENCY

Article 6 of the ECT will become Article 11 of the EFUT. It only has an editorial change and will read: “Environmental protection requirements must be integrated into the definition and implementation of the Community policies and activities, in particular with a view to promoting sustainable development”.

There is also a general article in the EFUT requiring consistency:

Article 7: The Union shall ensure consistency between its policies and activities, taking all of its objectives into account and in accordance with the principle of conferral of powers.

 

3. INCREASED POWER OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

The Reform Treaty is increasing the areas where for the co-decision procedure applies. This procedure will be called: “the ordinary legislative procedure”. It will apply unless said differently in the new Treaties.
The co-decision procedure already applied for, for example, Internal Market, Transport, Environment (with exceptions, see art. 175, para 2). With the Reform Treaty it expands to decisions regarding, for example,

Agriculture and fisheries (article 32-38 and 162),

1. In particular to “establish the common organisation of agricultural markets provided for in Article 34(1) and the other provisions necessary for the pursuit of the objectives of the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy.” But NOT on “measures on fixing prices, levies, aid and quantitative limitations and on the fixing and allocation of fishing opportunities.” Such decisions remain in the hands of Council only.
2. Also, decisions regarding the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund, Guidance Section.

(liberalization of) Services (article 49-55)
 
Transport (article 70-80)
A difficult chapter concerning decisionmaking procedures. The only part where the co-decision procedure is clearly new is deciding on “appropriate provisions for sea and air transport. They shall act after consulting the Committee of the Regions and the Economic and Social Committee.

External trade (“common commercial policy”) (article 131-134, to become 188b and 188c)

1. at least for regulations on the “ measures defining the framework for implementing the common commercial policy” (new Article 188.c.2) .
2. but the control over the Commission’s approach in trade-negotiations remains the exclusive right of the Council. The Parliament will only be informed.

Cohesion Policy (Structural and cohesion funds) (article 158-162)

Article 161: Without prejudice to Article 162, the European Parliament and the Council, acting by means of regulations in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure .and consulting the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, shall define the tasks, priority objectives and the organisation of the Structural Funds, which may involve grouping the Funds. The general rules applicable to them and the provisions necessary to ensure their effectiveness and the coordination of the Funds with one another and with the other existing financial instruments, shall also be defined by the same procedure.

A Cohesion Fund set up in accordance with the same procedure shall provide a financial contribution to projects in the fields of environment and transEuropean networks in the area of transport infrastructure.

 

4. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

Including the citizens initiative

New:  Article 8b

1. The institutions shall, by appropriate means, give citizens and representative associations the opportunity to make known and publicly exchange their views in all areas of Union action.
2. The institutions shall maintain an open, transparent and regular dialogue with representative associations and civil society.
3. The Commission shall carry out broad consultations with parties concerned in order to ensure that the Union's actions are coherent and transparent.
4. Not less than one million citizens who are nationals of a significant number of Member States may take the initiative of inviting the Commission, within the framework of its powers, to submit any appropriate proposal on matters where citizens consider that a legal act of the Union is required for the purpose of implementing the Treaties.
The procedures and conditions required for such a citizens' initiative shall be determined in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 21 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

 

5. TRANSPARENCY

Article 15 (old 255):

1. In order to promote good governance and ensure the participation of civil society, the Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies shall conduct their work as openly as possible.

2. The European Parliament shall meet in public, as shall the Council when considering and voting on a draft legislative act.
3.1. Any citizen of the Union, and any natural or legal person residing or having its registered office in a Member State, shall have a right of access to documents of the Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies, whatever their medium, subject to the principles and the conditions to be defined in accordance with this paragraph.
3.2. General principles and limits on grounds of public or private interest governing this right of access to documents shall be determined by the Council by means of regulations, acting in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 251.
3.3. Each institution shall ensure that its proceedings are transparent and shall elaborate  in its own Rules of Procedure specific provisions regarding access to its documents in accordance with the legislative act referred to in the second subparagraph..

3.4 The Court of Justice of the European Union, the European Central Bank and the European Investment Bank shall be subject to this paragraph only when exercising their administrative tasks.

3.5. The European Parliament and the Council shall ensure publication of the documents relating to the legislative procedures under the terms laid down by the regulation referred to in the second subparagraph.".

 

6. THE ENVIRONMENTAL CHAPTER

Articles 174 to 176 of the ECT will be amended in several ways. Below the old text (including editorial changes) with the substantial changes indicated:

Article 174

1. Union policy on the environment shall contribute to pursuit of the following objectives:
- preserving, protecting and improving the quality of the environment;
- protecting human health;
- prudent and rational utilisation of natural resources;
- promoting measures at international level to deal with regional or worldwide environmental problems, and in particular combating climate change.

2. Union policy on the environment shall aim at a high level of protection taking into account the diversity of situations in the various regions of the Community. It shall be based on the precautionary principle and on the principles that preventive action should be taken, that environmental damage should as a priority be rectified at source and that the polluter should pay.
In this context, harmonisation measures answering environmental protection requirements shall include, where appropriate, a safeguard clause allowing Member States to take provisional measures, for non-economic environmental reasons, subject to a procedure of inspection by the Union.”.

3. In preparing its policy on the environment, the Union shall take account of:
- available scientific and technical data;
- environmental conditions in the various regions of the Union;
- the potential benefits and costs of action or lack of action;
- the economic and social development of the Union as a whole and the balanced development of its regions.

4. Within their respective spheres of competence, the Union and the Member States shall cooperate with third countries and with the competent international organisations. The arrangements for Union cooperation may be the subject of agreements between the Union and the third parties concerned,
The previous subparagraph shall be without prejudice to Member States' competence to negotiate in international bodies and to conclude international agreements.

Article 175

1. The Council, acting in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 251 and after consulting the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, shall decide what action is to be taken by the Community in order to achieve the objectives referred to in Article 174.

2. By way of derogation from the decisionmaking procedure provided for in paragraph 1 and without prejudice to Article 95, the Council, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, shall adopt:
- provisions primarily of a fiscal nature;
- measures concerning town and country planning, land use with the exception of waste management and measures of a general nature, and management of water resources;
- measures significantly affecting a Member State's choice between different energy sources and the general structure of its energy supply.

The Council, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, may make the ordinary legislative procedure applicable to the matters referred to in the first subparagraph.";

3. general action programmes setting out priority objectives to be attained shall be adopted by the Council, acting in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 251 and after consulting the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions.
The measures necessary for the implementation of these programmes shall be adopted under the terms of paragraph 1 or 2, as the case may be.

4. Without prejudice to certain measures adopted by the Union, the Member States shall finance and implement the environment policy.

5. Without prejudice to the principle that the polluter should pay, if a measure based on the provisions of paragraph 1 involves costs deemed disproportionate for the public authorities of a Member State, such measure shall lay down appropriate provisions in the form of:
- temporary derogations, and/or
- financial support from the Cohesion Fund set up pursuant to Article 161.

Article 176
The protective measures adopted pursuant to Article 175 shall not prevent any Member State from maintaining or introducing more stringent protective measures. Such measures must be compatible with this Treaty. They shall be notified to the Commission.

 

7. THE NEW ENERGY CHAPTER

Highlighted the specific positive references (the last one guaranteeing that the EU cannot impose nuclear energy on a MS):

TITLE XX ENERGY
Article 176a

1. In the context of the establishment and functioning of the internal market and with regard for the need to preserve and improve the environment, Union policy on energy shall aim, in a spirit of solidarity between Member States, to:
(a) ensure the functioning of the energy market;
(b) ensure security of energy supply in the Union; and
(c) promote energy efficiency and energy saving and the development of new and renewable forms of energy; and
(d) promote the interconnection of energy networks.

2. Without prejudice to the application of other provisions of the Treaties, the European Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, shall establish the measures necessary to achieve the objectives in paragraph 1. Such measures shall be adopted after consultation of the Committee of the Regions and the Economic and Social Committee.
Such measures shall not affect a Member State's right to determine the conditions for exploiting its energy resources, its choice between different energy sources and the general structure of its energy supply, without prejudice to Article 175(2)(c).

3. By way of derogation from paragraph 2, the Council, acting in accordance with a special legislative procedure, shall unanimously and after consulting the European Parliament, establish the measures referred to therein when they are primarily of a fiscal nature.

 

8. ENVIRONMENTAL CRIME

Apparently, a new article in the EFUT is going to make it possible to adopt a Directive on Environmental Crime, while the current Treaties, according to a verdict of the Court of Justice of 23/10/07 do not allow for this.

The basis is the co-decision procedure, but, as you will see below, a Member State can call upon the European Council to interfere.

The relevant parts of Article 69f :

2. If the approximation of criminal laws and regulations of the Member States proves essential to ensure the effective implementation of a Union policy in an area which has been subject to harmonisation measures, directives may establish minimum rules with regard to the definition of criminal offences and sanctions in the area concerned. Such directives shall be adopted by the same ordinary or special legislative procedure as was followed for the adoption of the harmonisation measures in question, without prejudice to Article 68.

3. Where a member of the Council considers that a draft directive as referred to in paragraph 1 or 2 would affect fundamental aspects of its criminal justice system, it may request that the draft directive be referred to the European Council. In that case, the ordinary legislative procedure shall be suspended. After discussion, and in case of a consensus, the European Council shall, within four months of this suspension, refer the draft back to the Council, which shall terminate the suspension of the ordinary legislative procedure.
Within the same timeframe, in case of disagreement, and if at least nine Member States wish to establish enhanced cooperation on the basis of the draft directive concerned, they shall notify the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission accordingly. In such a case, the authorisation to proceed with enhanced cooperation referred to in Articles 10(2) of the Treaty on European Union and Article 208d(1) of this Treaty shall be deemed to be granted and the provisions on enhanced cooperation shall apply.

Skupina deseti významných evropských nevládních organizací zhodnotila výsledky práce Evropské komise v polovině jejího funkčního období. Neformální skupina známá jako Green 10 (Zelená desítka) hodnotila šestnáct oblastí evropské politiky Komise škálou od jednoho do 10 bodů. Celkový průměr hodnocení činí 4,3 bodu (z deseti možných). Nejlepší známku na pololetní vysvědčení získala Barossova komise za politiky v oblasti ochrany klimatu (7 bodů). Nejhůře byla hodnocena politika v oblasti GMO, lesů a ochrany moří (pouhé 2 body).

Relativně dobře ještě dopadlo hodnocení v oblastí energetiky a zemědělství (6 bodu). Velice špatně byly naopak hodnoceny politika v oblasti odpadů a přírodních zdrojů, ale také obchodní a chemická politika, i celková politika udržitelného rozvoje (po 3 bodech).

Zelená 10 je volné sdružení ekologických nevládních organizací, která zahrnuje Birdlife International, CEE Bankwatch Network, Climate Action Network Europe, European Environment Bureau, Transport and Environment, Health and Environment Alliance, Friends of the Earth Europe, Greenpeace, International Friends of Nature, WWF European Policy Office.

Společná tisková zpráva Green 10: Green groups deliver critical mid-term review of Barroso Commission

Celý text hodnotící zprávy nazvané „Could Try Harder“- A mid-term report on the European Commission's environmental record

K některým projednávaným politikám najdete také bližší informace v češtině na stánkách STUŽ:

Hlas europoslanců pro lepší prevenci a recyklaci odpadů, proti zvýhodnění spaloven

Chemická politika EU – REACH

Europoslanci: Vzduch může být špinavější déle

Vážná pochybení v návrhu politiky EU pro užívání pesticidů - nechrání přírodu ani zdraví lidí

Největší evropské nevládní ekologické organizace (NGOs) se obávají, že jednání o nové chemické politice REACH směřuje ke krachu, protože předsednictví Finska předložilo jako tzv. kompromisní řešení návrh, který ignoruje klíčové požadavky Evropského parlamentu (EP). Finský návrh totiž dovoluje chemickému průmyslu  i nadále vyrábět a používat nebezpečné chemikálie (např. rakovinotvorné, mutagenní nebo reprotoxické), za které je dostupná bezpečnější náhrada.

Vinou ministrů Kalaše (bezpartijní) a Římana (ODS) bohužel i zástupci ČR v Evropské unii prosazují zájmy nebezpečných výrob před ochranu zdraví obyvatel a odmítají povinnou náhradu nejnebezpečnějších chemikálii, navrhovanou europoslanci.

„Pokud by byl přijat návrh finského předsednictví, zůstaly by na trhu i ty rakovinotvorné chemikálie či látky narušující hormonální a reprodukční systém, za které existuje bezpečnější náhrada. Nedošlo by k žádnému zlepšení současného nevyhovujícího způsobu nakládání s chemickými látkami,“ varoval ředitel evropských Přátel Země Fouad Hamdan.

 

Navržení kompromisu mezi pozicí Evropského parlamentu a Rady EU patří k institucionální roli Evropské komise (EK). Její předseda  Barroso ale podle NGOs se v případě REACH patrně rozhodl ponechat Komisi "mimo hru". EK zatím jako jediná evropská instituce neprojednávala princip povinné náhrady nebezpečných chemikálií na nejvyšší úrovni.

 

Pasivní přístup předsedy EK Barrosa je podle NGOs v rozporu s postojem komisaře pro životní prostředí Dimase, který opakovaně konstatoval, že právní podpora substituce by byla přínosem pro životní prostředí, pro zdraví i pro moderní podnikání. Také Němec Verheugen v roli komisaře pro průmysl deklaroval veřejně svou podporu povinné náhradě nebezpečných látek, za které jsou dostupné bezpečnější alternativy. Ale podle informace NGOs činí v rámci komise kroky, které naopak prosazení substituce blokuje.

 

NGOs proto vyzvaly Komisi, aby se aktivně podílela na vyjednáváních o podobě REACH.

 

Nejbližší jednání mezi Parlamentem, Radou a Komisí proběhnou v pondělí 20.listopadu.

---

European Environmental Bureau (EEB), Friends of the Earth Europe, Greenpeace a WWF

Zelená desítka, koalice environmentálních nevládních organizací zaměřená na politiku EU, zveřejnila dnes široký, dynamický program pro udržitelný rozvoj EU. Jedná se o soubor konkrétních návrhů vyzývající politiky a rozhodující činitele Evropské unie, aby přeměnili Strategii udržitelného rozvoje Evropské unie na ambiciózní, ale dosažitelný plán.

Zásadní podmínkou všech klíčových témat je vytvoření souboru měřitelných cílů – od klimatu a energie, k sociálnímu vyloučení a dopravě – a zrovna tak je důležitá lepší implementace existující environmentální legislativy napříč členskými státy. EU. Ostatní priority návrhu zahrnují: 10% přesun daní od zdanění práce ke zdanění aktivit škodících životnímu prostředí, požadavek na snížení spotřeby nových osobních aut na polovinu během následujících deseti let, který Desítka upřednostňuje před konkurenčním návrhem využití biopaliv a dále také požadavek na zajištění lepší koordinace mezi členskými státy směřující k účinné a koherentní strategii pomoci.

Dnešní návrh Zelené desítky je přímou odpovědí na revizi Strategie udržitelného rozvoje, kterou zveřejnila Komise v prosinci 2005. Tuto revizi vidí environmentální organizace jako pozitivní krok vpřed, i když stále lze v ní najít velký prostor ke zlepšení. Zelená desítka chválí Rakouské předsednictví za organizaci debat ke Strategii udržitelného rozvoje EU na všech zasedáních Rad ministrů před přijetím definitivní verze strategie na Evropském summitu v červnu 2006. Rada ministrů životního prostředí začíná diskusi 9. března.

John Hontelez, generální tajemník Evropské environmentální kanceláře, uvedl: „Doufáme, že ministři životního prostředí vtisknou strategii ambiciózní charakter a že následující Rady ministrů budou následovat jejich příklad – a doufáme, že tento proces povede k dobrému výsledku v červnu. Program Zelené desítky se snaží podnítit debatu o tom, jak se EU může stát prosperující a sociálně spravedlivou společností, která respektuje únosné kapacity regionu a světa.“


Program Zelené desítky pro udržitelný rozvoj EU je k dispozici na: http://www.eeb.org/activities/sustainable_development/G10-on-SDS-March2006.pdf

Další informace:
John Hontelez, EEB Secretary General, Tel:  +32 (0)486 512 127 
Jiří Dlouhý, místopředseda Společnosti pro trvale udržitelný život, tel:  603 841 304 

Skupina evropských ekologických a zdravotních organizací ocenila, že výbor Evropského parlamentu (EP) pro životní prostředí (ŽP) projednal návrh na nařízení pro aplikaci "Úmluvy o přístupu k informacím, účasti veřejnosti na rozhodování a přístupu k právní ochraně v záležitostech životního prostředí". Přes tlak lobbystické organizace chemického průmyslu (CEFIC) při projednávání tzv. Aarhuské konvence odmítl parlamentní výbor restrikce, na kterých v prosinci 2004 dohodla Rada ministrů ŽP.

Výbor EP pro ŽP hlasoval ve prospěch toho, aby se přístup k informacím a účast veřejnosti týkal i bankovních aktivit institucí spravujících veřejné finance (např. Evropská investiční banka /EIB - European Investment Bank/). Dále výbor rozhodl, že nevládní organizace mají mít přístup ke spravedlnosti na úrovni Evropské unie i ve věcech ochrany životního prostředí.

Evropské NGO ve svém stanovisku upozornily i na to, že nátlakové sdružení evropského chemického průmyslu CEFIC se na poslední chvíli pokoušelo svou intervencí zvrátit hlasování ve výboru EP a žádalo poslance, aby hlasovali proti právu občanů na informace a proti přístupu občanů ke spravedlnosti ve věcech životního prostředí.

Společné stanovisko vydané 22. listopadu 2005 v Bruselu podpořily CEE Bankwatch Network, Friends of the Earth Europe, European Environmental Bureau, European Public Health Alliance - Environment Network a Transport and Environment. Celé stanovisko v angličtině naleznete níže.

Text Aarhuské konvecne v čestině i angličtině naleznete ZDE: "Úmluva o přístupu k informacím, účasti veřejnosti na rozhodování a přístupu k právní ochraně v záležitostech životního prostředí"

European Parliament vote brings Aarhus Convention application back on track (Brussels, Belgium, 22 November 2005) -- European environmental and health organisations welcomed the position taken today by the European Parliament’s Environment Committee on a Regulation to apply the Aarhus Convention to the EU institutions. The Committee voted for amendments to bring the Regulation in line with the Aarhus Convention’s requirements and rejected the limitations EU Environmental Ministers had agreed upon in December last year.

Environmental and health organisations welcome European Parliament Environment Committee vote in favour of environmental democracy

 

The Committee decided that the Regulation should follow the terms of the Aarhus Convention more closely. For instance, access to information and public participation should also include information related to banking activities, and environmental NGOs should have the right to access to justice on the EU level to defend the environment.

John Hontelez, Secretary General of the European Environmental Bureau, said: ”The European Community ratified the Aarhus Convention a year ago. However, the Council of Ministers refused to accept the consequences of this Convention, which is there to strengthen environmental democracy. Access to justice to defend environmental interests is an essential tool for environmental organisations when public authorities fail to apply their own laws. Aarhus requirements apply in the member states and should also apply to the EU’s institutions. The Environment Committee took the right decision to bring this key element back in the second reading.”

Magda Stoczkiewicz, Policy Co-ordinator of CEE-Bankwatch Network, commented: ”We are delighted that the Environment Committee shares our view that banking should not be exempted from Aarhus. It means that the EU’s house bank, the European Investment Bank, will need to adapt its information policy to the rules of the Regulation. It is a very welcome outcome given the fact that the EIB has been advocating for exemption from this Regulation and it should lead to the first binding law for the EIB to release information to interested citizens and people affected by EIB financed projects.”

The environmental organisations are disappointed about the decision of the rapporteur of the Environment Committee, the Finnish conservative Eija Riitta Korhola to vote against the final result of the votes since most of the amendments she proposed were adopted. She was followed by most PPE-members, but a big majority of the Committee supported the resulting report, for final vote in the EP Plenary in December or January.

A remarkable last minute intervention came from CEFIC, the European umbrella of the chemical industry. In a letter it called upon the members of the Environment Committee to vote against amendments on access to information and access to justice rights for EU citizens.

John Hontelez said: “CEFIC wants to limit the role of environmental NGOs. The Commission, in its original proposal for the Regulation, found a good way to implement also the third pillar of the Aarhus Convention: access to justice. The European Community is a prestigious Party to the Aarhus Convention and it should not give the bad example of partial, arbitrary, application. The Environment Committee’s amendments help prevent this.”

If the EP Plenary follows the Environment Committee, Parliament and Council will have to come to an agreement via a conciliation procedure.

For further information please contact:
John Hontelez, EEB, Tel:  +32 486 512 127 , e-mail: Tato e-mailová adresa je chráněna před spamboty. Pro její zobrazení musíte mít povolen Javascript.
Magda Stoczkiewicz, CEE Bankwatch Network, Tel:  +32 475 867 637 , e-mail: Tato e-mailová adresa je chráněna před spamboty. Pro její zobrazení musíte mít povolen Javascript.
Genon K. Jensen, EPHA Environment Network (EEN),  +32 495 808 732 

Návrh nové chemické politiky (REACH) v hlasování Evropského parlamentu (EP) prošel jasnou většinou, v poměru 407 hlasů PRO a 155 hlasů PROTI. Spotřebitelské, ekologické, ženské a zdravotnické organizace dnes ve společném prohlášení ocenily, že se EP vyslovil pro náhradu nebezpečných chemikálií bezpečnějšími alternativami podporou seriózní procedury autorizace chemikálií. Nevládní organizace zároveň varují, že se parlament vyslovil pro velmi benevolentní podmínky pro registraci chemických látek, což by vedlo k tomu, že u tisíců látek nebudou zpracována jejich základní toxikologická hodnocení.

Nevládní organizace dále upozorňují, že další rozhodnutí o identifikaci a náhradě nebezpečných chemickálií bude mít v ruce Rada ekonomických ministrů členských zemí EU (ČR zastupuje buď Martin Jahn nebo Milan Urban) a že na nich bude záležet, zda politici dají přednost ochraně zdraví všech obyvatel Evropy a jejich životnímu prostředí nebo zájmům velkých výrobců chemikálií.

Společné prohlášení podepsaly následující nevládní organizace a jejich koalice: European Environmental Bureau, European Public Health Alliance - Environment Network, EUROCOOP, Friends of the Earth Europe, Greenpeace, Women in Europe for a Common Future, WWF. Jeho text anglickém originále následuje.

Parliament votes to phase out hazardous chemicals but allows huge knowledge gaps on safety

Strasbourg, 17 November 2005 - Environmental, women’s, health and consumer organisations recognised the important step taken by Parliament today towards replacing hazardous chemicals with safer alternatives but regretted that MEPs exempted thousands of chemicals from the need to provide any health and safety information.

The European Parliament supported the obligation to replace hazardous chemicals with safer alternatives when these are available (the ‘substitution principle’), sending a strong message to ministers of national governments who will next make a decision on REACH. This requirement is essential to end the build-up of harmful chemicals in our bodies and the environment.

The groups warned, however, that the failure to provide basic safety information about chemicals will make it impossible to systematically identify and replace the most hazardous substances, which is the one of the principle aims of REACH. At present we lack basic data on the environmental and health impacts of 90% of substances.

The groups therefore condemned the decision to severely weaken crucial safety testing requirements for all chemicals covered by REACH.

A REACH adopted on this basis will not deliver the health and environment protection the public needs, as it would leave thousands of chemicals without basic toxicity data and so would hamper the identification of harmful chemicals, such as hormone disrupters.

The Council of Ministers has the opportunity to strengthen the legislation - when Competitiveness Ministers meet in Brussels – by ensuring that the legislation will help both identify and replace hazardous chemicals covered by REACH. This is a unique opportunity to protect women, men and children and their environment and it should not be sacrificed for the short-sighted interests of the large chemicals producers.

Spotřebitelské, ekologické, ženské a zdravotnické organizace dnes ve společné prohlášení varovaly, že Evropský parlament může svým hlasováním ohrozit původní záměr reformy chemické politiky EU (REACH) na lepší ochranu zdraví lidí a životní prostředí. REACH by podle prohlášení NGO mohl být naopak vážným ohrožením pro zdraví i přírodu, pokud nebude přijata procedura autorizace (povolení) nebezpečných chemikálií v podobě navržené ekologickým výborem Evropského parlamentu a pokud by byla schválena registrace chemikálií v kompromisní podobě navržené poslanci Sacconim a Nassauerem.


Společné porhlášení podepsaly následující nevládní organizace a jejich koalice: European Environmental Bureau, European Public Health Alliance - Environment Network, EUROCOOP, Friends of the Earth Europe, Greenpeace, Women in Europe for a Common Future, WWF. Jeho text anglickém originále následuje.

WHEN ‘REACH’ BECOMES A THREAT

Environmental, health, women's and consumer groups warned today that the Parliament risks turning REACH from a pro-environment and health legislation into just the opposite. If the Sacconi-Nassauer deal on registration is adopted by plenary and, at the same time, the authorisation package agreed in the environment committee is rejected, REACH will not only fail to benefit human health and the environment but would threaten them, the groups said. This will not improve the bad image of the chemicals industry.

AUTHORISATION: weakening existing protection levels - The door will be wide open for the continued and legal use of identified dangerous chemicals if producers are allowed to continue marketing the most hazardous substances by claiming they are ‘adequately controlled’. Unless the authorisation package adopted in the environment committee is supported, an identified carcinogen or reproductive toxin for which safe alternatives are available would be allowed to stay on the market and could be used in consumer products, contrary to existing legislation.

REGISTRATION - The registration package supported by the main political groups would let companies supply only little and low quality safety information on chemical substances:

- Almost no safety data will be required for 70-90% of substances produced in 1-10 tonne volumes per year – beyond, for example, details of boiling point. (Current legislation requires health-relevant information for all new chemicals produced in volumes above 10 kilos a year.)

- Tests for chemicals produced in all volumes above 10 tonnes per year will fall below international (OECD) guidelines for high volume chemicals, which industry has long committed to respect.

- Large chemicals producers will be permitted not to share data with SMEs. Without obtaining basic safety information, there is no way of identifying which chemicals pose a threat to health and the environment, or of banning their use. The NGOs warned the Parliament not to mislead the public by calling a decision that is likely to damage human health and the environment a pro-environment vote.

Největší evropská federace nevladních ekologických organizací (European Environmental Bureau - EEB) vyjádřila dnes v tiskové zprávě obavy z vážných nedostatků v připravovaném návrhu Tématické strategie pro recyklaci a prevenci vzniku odpadů (Thematic Strategy for Waste Prevention and Recycling).

Commission plans to bin credible recycling policy

Brussels (25/10/2005) – Last Thursday 20 October the European Commission launched an inter-Commission-service consultation ahead of finalising the Thematic Strategy for Waste Prevention and Recycling by end November. The EEB, Europe's largest federation of environmental citizens' organisations, is concerned that as it stands the Strategy would propose an approach that leads to clear deregulation and loss of environmental ambition level for EU waste management policies – in particular concerning the key objective of moving towards resource efficiency and a (resource) recycling society.

The combination of abandoning the existing approach of waste stream recycling targets and substituting it with tools such as ‘lifecycle thinking’ to be carried out via plans at national or regional level or ‘recycled product standards’, is the same as stopping all attempts to actively steer waste management across the EU up the waste hierarchy towards more recycling and less dumping and burning.

“We do not see how the Commission will be able to follow 25, or probably many more, simultaneous lifecycle assessment processes on whether to dump, burn or recycle individual types of waste. The Commission already admits that it does not have the possibility to assess the Waste Management Plans it receives – so how will they assess such complex processes as individual national, regional or local ‘lifecycle thinking’ assessments?” asks John Hontelez, Secretary General of the EEB. “This process is not enforceable and the conclusion can only be that we are shifting waste policy from enforceable tools and policy approaches that can be clearly monitored – such as harmonised EU recycling targets on priority waste streams – to unenforceable ‘soft tools’ like so-called local assessments of best lifecycle options”.

The Commission, in response to the simplification focus of the new industrial policy launched on 5 October, claims the main driver for the simplification of waste legislation will be the Thematic Strategy on Waste Prevention and Recycling . However, according to the EEB’s EU Policy Director Stefan Scheuer, “the foreseen approach is virtually unenforceable and will therefore greatly complicate – rather than simplify – the implementation of a common EU waste policy. We call on the Commission to adopt a coherent and constructive approach to ‘better regulation’, which deserves this name. EU waste policy should therefore retain enforceable tools and implementable objectives such as harmonised EU recycling targets”.

To add to these concerns the draft Strategy would not only abandon the active policy to steer waste towards recycling, it would also simultaneously promote incineration – proposing to reverse a European Court of Justice case by reclassifying Municipal Solid Waste incineration as recovery, purely on the basis of energy efficiency. There would be no consideration of wider environmental concerns regarding the greater resource and energy savings that can often be achieved by recycling, or criteria such as preventing dispersion of hazardous substances.

For further information please contact:
Melissa Shinn, EEB Waste Policy Officer, tel:  +32 2 289 1308 
Gemma Parkes, Press & Publications Officer, tel:  +32 2 289 1309 

Note to editors:

Our concerns that the Strategy implies a shift towards national and local assessments is based primarily on the direct dismissal of further waste stream legislation (in preference for material stream focus) – on page 17 of inter-service consultation draft Commission Communication Taking sustainable use of resources forward: A Thematic Strategy on the prevention and recycling of waste. This is proposed despite the Impact assessment background report submitted by EPEC which clearly emphasises the benefits of such legislation and its targets (page 38 EPEC report) and despite a general rejection of the material approach by almost all stakeholders (page 161 EPEC report) – available at http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/waste/pdf/epec_report_05.pdf

However, our concerns are also based on our observations of the approach proposed for the management of biowaste. This is the only waste stream (of the two waste streams identified in the 6EAP as candidates for recycling legislation – and therefore potential application of recycling targets) that is addressed directly by the Strategy package. It is therefore the first waste stream that has been assessed and evaluated with this new proposed Commission waste policy approach, thereby illustrating the de facto results of such an approach (see page 18 of inter-service consultation draft Commission Communication Taking sustainable use of resources forward: A Thematic Strategy on the prevention and recycling of waste).

Evropské organizace zdravotníků, ochránců životního prostředí a práv spotřebitelů společně vyzvaly 6.10 2005 Evropskou agenturu pro bezpečnost potravin (EFSA), aby ochranu zdraví a životního prostředí upřednostnila před komerčními zájmy.

Podle společného prohlášení EUROCOOP, European Environmental Bureau (EEB), Přátel Země, European Public Health Alliance a Greenpeace by EFSA měla podstatně změnit svou práci i své procedury. Výrazně kriticky se tyto organizace staví zejména k práci EFSA v oblasti geneticky modifikovaných organismů (GMO). EFSA by měla mimo jiné zvýšit transparentnosti svých rozhodovacích procesů a přehodnotit složení vědeckých panelů tak, aby byla zachována jejich nestrannost a nezávislost na průmyslu.

Společná výzva NGO adresovaná EPSA je k dispozici ve formátu PDF ZDE: The EFSA stakeholders challenge – working with civil society

Zároveň s touto výzvou zveřejnila organizace Greenpeace studii, která poukazuje na chyby EFSA při schvalování geneticky modifikované kukuřice BT-11 švýcarské společnosti Syngenta, při níž podle Greenpeace agentura nedodržela unijní pravidla pro hodnocení rizik GMO. Zpráva je k dispozici ve formátu PDF ZDE: Report - Bt11 maize: a scientific analysis and critique of the EFSA authorisation

Detailní studie Přítel Země analyzující chyby v práci EFSA, která byla vydáná v listopadu 2004, je pro zájemce k dispozici ve formátu PDF ZDE: Throwing caution to the wind

Ve dnech 21. až 25. září proběhla v holandském Apeldoornu výroční konference EEB a také setkání velkých evropských ochranářských organizací.

Konference tentokrát proběhla souběžně s dalšími třema velkými akcemi - setkáními Europarc, Eurosite a ECNC. Hlavním tématem konference byla společná strategie ochrany biodiverzity, přírody a krajiny v Evropě pro 21. století. Tato strategie byla vyjádřena v Apeldoornské výzvě.

Na vlastní výroční konferenci EEB byl schválen program organizace na příští rok, rozpčet atd. V této oblasti nedošlo k žádným výrazným změnám proti minulým rokům.

Změna naopak nastala ve funkci prezidenta EEB. Dosavadní prezident Ralph Hallo do dalšího období nekandidoval a tak byla osoba nového prezidenta nejasná až do poslední chvíle. Nakonec byl zvolen Mikael Karlsson ze Švédska, navržený českou delegací.

Českou republiku bude po příští dva roky ve výboru zastupovat Eva Kružíková z Ústavu pro ekopolitiku, Slovensko místopředseda slovenské STUŽky Vladimír Ira.

Koalice evropských nevládních organizací  (EEB, FoE, FNI, T&E) naléhá na evropské ekonomické ministry, aby udělali rozhodující krok k vyloučení daňové výjimky pro letecký benzín používaný pro civilní letectví.

Na zasedání rady ECOFIN  12. dubna budou ministři projednávat mimo jiné nový finanční mechanizmus na rozvojovou pomoc Africe. Francouzský návrh počítá právě s použitím daňových zisků z kerosinu. Koalice nevládních organizací poznamenává, že od 1. ledna 2004 mohou být tyto daně zavedeny na vnitrostátní lety a na lety mezi členskými státy EU. Některé země, např. Holandsko, již začalo tyto daně uplatňovat, ostatní jsou vyzýváni k následování.

Dopis nevládních organizací přichází v době, kdy Komise připravuje oficiální prohlášení k různým ekonomickým nástrojům k ovlivnění vlivu letecké dopravy na klimatickou změnu. Samotná daňová úleva byla zavedena v roce 1944 k podpoře rodícího se leteckého průmyslu.

Plný text dopisu i tiskové zpráva je v angličtině dostupný na stránkých www.eeb.org .

25. února uspořádala EEB v Lucemburku mezinárodní konferenci "Naměrování Lisabonského procesu k udržitelnému rozvoji". Hlavními řečníky konference byli komisař EU pro životní prostředí Stavros Dimas, lucemburský ministr životního prostředí Lucien Lux a ředitel direktoriátu životního prostředí OECD Lorents G. Lorentsen.

Konference patřila ke širokému spektru aktivit, kterými se EEB snaží ovlivnit další směřování Evropské unie.
"Jarní zpráva 2005 je převážně orientovaná na ekonomické otázky Lisabonského procesu a prakticky nezahrnuje sociální ani environmentální rozměr, tak jak slibovala Evropská komise od summitu v Göteborgu", říká generální tajemník EEB John Hontelez. "Zdá se, že často přehlížený cíl, tedy začlenění Strategie udržitelného rozvoj EU do Lisabonského procesu, je v současné době otevřeně popírán."
Další podrobnosti o tiskovém prohlášení EEB k této konferenci najdete na stránkách EEB