OpenLobby.EU
Explore

Association Justice Environment, z.s.

JE

JE aims for better legislation and implementation of environmental law on the national and European Union (EU) stage to protect the environment, people and nature.

Lobbying Activity

Response to Climate Law

30 Apr 2020

The Association Justice and Environment strongly supports the Commission’s initiative to foster the implementation of the Paris Agreement. In order to achieve climate neutrality by 2050, comprehensive measures are required. These include the adaption of the GHG reduction target for 2030, a periodic review of existing and future policies and regulations as well as an effective monitoring mechanism. Biodiversity and animal welfare on the one hand and public participation on the other must be sufficiently taken into account when proceeding with the Commission’s initiatives. For detailed remarks on the Proposal for a European Climate Law, please see the attached Position Paper.
Read full response

Response to 2030 Climate Target Plan

15 Apr 2020

Feedback on 2030 Climate Target Plan (4000 characters) We strongly support setting the new 2030 climate goal and we propose to set it as high as possible. Since we support the CAN Europe call for an increase of the EUs 2030 climate target to at least 65% compared to 1990, we want the 2030 goal to be set on at least the proposed 55% compared to 1990. We believe it is necessary that this 2030 goal is included in the European Climate Law, because it would be a great weakness of this piece of legislation if it is not included. Adding this goal later is weakening the whole process of strengthening EU ambitions about climate action. The first imperative in the path towards this goal is that the loss of biodiversity should be stopped in the same time. Protecting biodiversity in this manner is not only the possible co-benefit as it is described in the chapter “Likely environmental impacts”, but it should be the defined co-effect. Climate mitigation measures should be tailored in the way that their effect would significantly contribute to stop biodiversity loss which is the second, equally life threatening global problem. There should be an emphasis on consumption patterns and general awareness raising about their impacts on climate. The environmental (GHG) cost should be internalised in all products that are consumed in EU (regardless if they are produced in the EU or outside) – financial and tax “tools” can be very effective in this matter. Although it seems the change of energy production is the core issue in addressing the climate change, the overall change in society – production and consumption - is necessary, especially in the fields of food production and transport. Food production should follow three imperatives: enough food for all, producing food that is healthy for people and has low environment/carbon footprint. The land should be used mostly for producing healthy food for people. Transport seems as it is something “outside our reach” – it has its own growth that “can’t be stopped”. This is not true. It is not logical that we reduce GHG emissions in transport sector in the way that they still grow. EU has to do some significant steps to allow member states to address transit transport with some “climate friendly” measures or to adopt some common measures to address this problem. We strongly support adopting measures for addressing the emissions from the maritime sector and aviation, not only inside EU, but also coming from outside. By declaring the climate crisis the European Parliament stated that all policies and regulations should be reviewed – for the crisis measures and the path towards 2030 climate goals, this review is very important. In essence, this is about “mainstreaming” climate change (and biodiversity) through all policies and regulation (on EU and national levels). We propose to strengthen the strategic environmental assessment as an already existing tool and expand it in a way in which it would be a practical and operative tool to assess the impacts of all plans and regulations on climate.
Read full response

Response to Climate Law

6 Feb 2020

Justice& Environment support the legislative initiative. The main global threat, that led the European Parliament to declare a climate and environmental emergency, demands aligning of all activities in the EU community with the 1.5 °C target. So far, binding regulation was mostly concerned with the energetic sector and the mindset that the climate crisis would only demand changing of energy source, was not overcome yet. As the European Environmental Agency pointed out, a change of direction is urgently needed to face climate change (The European environment – state and outlook 2020) by stating: “Achieving the goals of the 2030 agenda for sustainable development and the Paris Agreement will require urgent action in each of these areas during the next 10 years. To be clear, Europe will not achieve its sustainability vision of ‘living well, within the limits of our planet’ simply by promoting economic growth and seeking to manage harmful side effects with environmental and social policy tools. Instead, sustainability needs to become the guiding principle for ambitious and coherent policies and actions across society. Enabling transformative change will require that all areas and levels of government work together and harness the ambition, creativity and power of citizens, businesses and communities. In 2020, Europe has a unique window of opportunity to lead the global response to sustainability challenges. Now is the time to act. “ (page 17) The European Climate Law should be the action that will change direction. It can encourage the implementation of “climate consciousness” mechanisms, necessary for mainstreaming climate mitigation and adaptation measures within sustainable development and most of all induce the main urgent measures for dealing with climate emergency. How could the Climate Law contribute: - follow the content of the Paris agreement on more operative level, considering protection of biodiversity and animal welfare at the same time; - deliver a clear message that dealing with the climate crisis is priority of the EU (all its bodies) and should be the priority of all governments of member states and all sectors and levels – like budget issues, it is a crosscutting issue on large and small scale and not just an issue for the environmental sector; - setting ambitious EU climate goals for 2030, 2040 and 2050 and sectoral goals, considering SDGs in the same time; - setting an obligation to review EU and national policies and legislation to reach the consistency and sectoral policy coherence aligned with the 1,5 °C target; - setting key demands regarding finance: internalize external costs (taxes for GHG emissions, no subsidies for fossil fuel, etc.) and engage all financial mechanisms to support desirable practices and taxation for not desirable practices; - setting measures for supporting circular economy and mechanisms for low carbon production, consumption and mobile patterns (food production, waste, shipping, aviation, etc.); - spatial planning through climate mitigation and adaptation aspects and biodiversity protection; - setting tools for a “climate mainstreaming check” – on the basis of existing strategic environmental assessments (upgrade the screening phase regarding climate change) or new tools, useful for decision makers on all levels; - setting clear tools for monitoring the implementation of measures.
Read full response

Response to EU 2030 Biodiversity Strategy

20 Jan 2020

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the roadmap! It is great that the opportunity to express one’s opinion on one the most important policy documents regarding biodiversity protection is offered to the public at such an early stage, i.e. at the stage of roadmap for adopting of a communication. However, to our dismay we could not see any further consultations with the public foreseen in the roadmap itself. Appreciating the fact that the new Commission has to swiftly propose EU position and commitments for the Kunming COP, it is unacceptable that this consultation would be the last and only chance for the wide public to have a say regarding the objectives and main measures for the over-arching EU biodiversity strategy for the next decade. We therefore urge, in the name of transparency and accountability, to provide additional opportunities for public consultation on the contents of the strategy. Notwithstanding the above, we would like to highlight the following aspects that should be covered in the future EU biodiversity strategy: 1) The strategy should include clear, quantifiable and legally binding objectives on both protection and restoration of biodiversity as well as implementation of EU nature legislation; 2) The strategy needs to include sufficient resources and measures to ensure full and effective implementation of EU nature legislation, especially the Habitats and Birds Directives. This needs to include, among others, resources to the European Commission to react to cases of non-compliance by Member States; 3) The strategy should highlight the importance of preventing harmful human activities on Natura 2000 sites and their conservation objectives by means of the appropriate assessments foreseen in art 6(3) and (4) of the Habitats Directive. Although the CJEU has a lot of progressive practice in this area, it is a widely known fact that the interpretations of the court are not followed in a number of Member States. To improve the situation, actions foreseen in the EU Action Plan for nature, people and the economy need to be extended and followed up. We attach a previous (but still relevant) NGO position on this matter which elaborates the view of us and our partners in this matter.
Read full response

Response to EU implementation of the Aarhus Convention in the area of access to justice in environmental matters

4 Jun 2018

As the Roadmap states: “The EU is a Party to the (Aarhus) Convention and must adhere to its obligations.” Accordingly, after having been found in 2017 to be in noncompliance with article 9, paras. 3 and 4 of the Convention by the ACCC, the EU declared at the most recent Meeting of the Parties in Budva that it will "continue to explore ways and means to comply with the Aarhus Convention in a way that is compatible with the fundamental principles of the Union legal order and with its system of judicial review, taking into account concerns expressed within the Convention". Such exploration is underway: The European Parliament called for legislative changes to the Aarhus Regulation. The EESC has since followed suit, and the Council appears poised to make an official request per Article 241 TFEU to this effect. This is, moreover, one of the ways in which the ACCC suggested compliance could be achieved. NGOs have obviously been urging such changes for years. While J&E acknowledges that the present proposed impact assessment could serve as a means to support the fulfillment of the EU’s commitment undertaken in Budva, we have two reservations. First, such a study should not lead to any further delays. That the EU fails to provide sufficient access to justice with regards to its own institutions has been clear for quite some time. Urgent action is needed, and the parties from various sectors and sides have already agreed: An amendment of the Aarhus Regulation is the clearest path to bring the EU into compliance. That should be pursued now. Second, any impact assessment must build on sound analyses. Some of the language included in the Roadmap raises concerns for us that that the impact assessment could from the outset be compromised. Thus for example any study which proceeds from the premise that the EU has a system of legal redress that is “already complete” based on the preliminary reference system under Article 267 TFEU is problematic in our view: Not only are there problems with those cases for which the legality of the underlying EU act could, in principle, be attacked on the basis of their implementing regulations through national courts, there are a host of acts and omissions for which no such implementing regulations exist – thus rendering the theoretical possibility of review through national courts a nullity. All of these issues were examined in depth in C-32 Parts I and II. We would add that we would not expect any difficulties with the subsidiarity check mentioned in the Roadmap. Such a check was undertaken recently with respect to a possible Communication to the Member States (and had been earlier with respect to a proposed Directive). The conclusion was that there were no difficulties in this regard and it is inconceivable that any inquiry with regards to EU institutions would yield different results. Regarding the Roadmap’s discussion on the need to evaluate all social, economic, and environmental aspects, we point to the Commission’s own impact analysis for the Member States, in which it found that there would be no additional economic impacts (as actors would only be adhering to existing provisions of EU law), and that increased abilities for NGOs and other members of the public had – contrary to popular discussions on the subject – not led to a glut of litigation. To the contrary, NGOs involve themselves very rarely in issues; where they do, they are informed and very successful, and their involvement serves procedural economy and the attainment of EU environmental goals. Such facts must inform the study. Thus we take this opportunity to call upon the Commission to do more than “explore ways and means to comply with the Aarhus Convention” by undertaking another study. We call upon the Commission and all actors to finally take determined steps now, and the Aarhus Regulation is the most expeditious, clear, and comprehensive way to bring the EU finally into compliance.
Read full response

Response to REFIT evaluation of the SEA Directive on Strategic Environmental Assessment

8 Aug 2017

Association Justice & Environment would like to register its interest in the REFIT process of the SEA Directive. We believe that the SEA Directive is an essential piece of the EU environmental legislation. If carried out correctly, the SEA has many benefits such as providing public participation at an early stage of decision making and enabling inclusion of environmental considerations „downstream“, thereby directing more specific development plans to a sustainable and evnvironmentally friendly path. Members of the network Justice & Environment in 11 EU MS are all well acquainted with SEA as a legal tool and its practical application in their states. We will therefore gladly contribute to the consultations outlined in the roadmap, and encourage the Commission consultants to contact us.
Read full response