Pat Swords has tackled government in a big way in calling both Ireland and the European Union to account for their renewable energy policy.  His common-man approach has been to steadfastly insist that the laws which are in place to protect citizen's rights actually be made to work.  His tools of preference have been Freedom of Information and the Aarhaus Compliance Committee which, though they grind exceeding slow, seem to be getting the job done.

We have seen so much ugly greed twisting noble motives that it seems hard to believe that the AARHUS CONVENTION ON ACCESS TO INFORMATION, PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN DECISION-MAKING AND ACCESS TO JUSTICE IN ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS  might actually live up to its eloquent rhetoric. Pat has taken pains to document his arduous path so that others may avoid some pitfalls and we all may gain ground where ever we are fighting the imposition of environmentally and economically damaging, unfair and fundamentally illegal energy policies.

LSARC.ca is happy to have Pat in our corner and congratulate him on the fact that the UNECE has ruled that the manner in which the EU is implementing its renewable energy programme (20% renewable energy by 2020) is not in compliance with the Aarhus Convention

Here is what he said:

All,
 
This has been a highly complex case of environmental law, for which the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee has issued its draft findings and recommendations today. In a nutshell UNECE has ruled that the manner in which the EU is implementing its renewable energy programme (20% renewable energy by 2020) is not in compliance with the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, namely the citizen's human and environmental rights, see introduction and three minute video clip: http://www.unece.org/env/pp/introduction.html .
 
Essentially the Convention defines the procedural rights of the citizen relating to the provision of information on the environment, the participation in the development of policies and individual planning decisions and finally the right to contest acts and omissions of the authorities in a legal system, which is fair, equitable, timely and not prohibitively expensive.
 
To repeat again, this case was complex. The EU ratified the Convention in 2005 and in order to do so brought in the necessary legal provision, namely Directives, which applied to the Member States and Regulations, which applied to its own Bodies and Institutions, Ireland was not only the single Member State, which has failed to ratify the Convention, but it failed also to comply with the necessary EU legislation implementing the Convention. While the UNECE Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee will investigate Communications from the public, they cannot do so in the case of Ireland, as it will not ratify the Convention, so a much more complex case had to be developed to bring the EU before the Compliance Committee. Furthermore, the Compliance Committee has only a limited amount of resources, so they will investigate only a limited number of test cases and will chose to investigate what aspects they consider important in improving general compliance with the goals of the Convention.
 
In this respect, they are not a regular legal court, so not all aspects in which EU and National law was breached will be addressed, only specific terms related to the Convention. In addition many of the issues were highly technical, which would be better understood by technical experts rather than a tribunal of legal experts with a limited timeframe.
 
However, this is a hugely important decision, which goes beyond the Irish situation to all the 27 Member States, the renewable energy programme as it currently stands is proceeding without 'proper authority', the public's right to be informed and to participate in its development and implementation has been by-passed. The goal of UNECE is to achieve compliance with the Convention, a process will now be started to ensure that the recommendations are addressed, if ultimately they are not, then UNECE has the option of requiring the EU to withdraw from this UN Convention on Human and Environmental Rights.
 
Finally there is another 'twist to this tale', as the Convention is part of EU law, there is now a legal ruling that this law has not been complied with. There are long established legal procedures where if a Member State does not comply with EU law, the citizen can seek 'damages made good'.  http://ec.europa.eu/eu_law/infringements/infringements_dommages_en.htm

Electricity costs are soaring to implement these dysfunctional policies, which have by-passed proper and legally required technical, economic and environmental assessments. Not only is the landscape being scarred as thousands of wind farms are being installed, but people in the vicinity are suffering health impacts from low frequency noise, while birdlife and other wildlife is also adversely impacted. It is long overdue that a STOP was put to this type of illegal and dysfunctional policy development and project planning.
 
Here is a Q&A I did on the Convention after returning from the September 2011 Compliance Committee meeting in Geneva and here is the video:
 
http://blip.tv/reliveproductions/pat-swords-talks-on-his-challenge-for-freedom-of-information-in-ireland-6020391

Regards
 
Pat