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:
Magda Stoczkiewicz, CEE Bankwatch Network, Tel:
Genon K. Jensen, EPHA Environment Network (EEN),
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.
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.
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:
Gemma Parkes, Press & Publications Officer, tel:
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).