The Irish Environmental Network

John Haughton presents his weekly NEAR.FM radio show ‘Enviro’.

 

 Enviro Radio Show - July 7th 2009: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Working together is a big part of any environmental group. As the world wide web develops groups now have more ways to collaborate, communicate and share information.
There are 1.5 billion people online, and half of them will visit blogger, facebook, youtube, flickr, or digg today. Some of your members may not be online, yet, but many are and once online people tend to stay online. The rest of this article will outline 11 popular applications.
Wikis Wikis are collaborative webpages. Users can write and edit a document, allowing a group of users to work on shared documents.  They are generally seen as an improvement over sharing documents via email because the information is stored in central location, making it easier to contribute without losing track of changes. Wikis in english is a great video that explains how wikis work, and why to use them.
Google Docs Google docs is very similar to wikis, and probably easier to use. The documents are hosted with google. Users can choose from spreadsheets, documents and presentations. Google has received criticism over privacy issues and its work in China, so if that is not a problem then google docs is a simpler option than wikis.
Social networks There are many many social networks, from facebook to youtube to flickr, the list goes on an on. These sites are providing new ways for users to share information and are quickly becoming a must if you wish to keep in contact the public or large groups of members. The important aspect to social networks is that they empower users to share information. They should not be seen as a substitute for newsletters or email campaigns. The easier it is to share the information the better.
Google Reader Another google application, google reader lets users be notified when something is published on websites they have ’subscribed’ to. This allows users to keep track of dozens of websites.
Second Life This application is a virtual world. Users can communicate with each other, build environments, buy and sell virtual products, and property. Each user creates their own virtual person who they control, walking, and even flying, through virtual space.
Google sketchup This application allows users to create virtual 3d spaces. You could build a house, a park, a town. It can be a very powerful tool in visualising physical spaces. For example, users could create a model of what an area ‘could’ look like, which might be useful in public consultations.
Webspiration This application is free at the moment and is a very powerful collaboration tool. Users can create shared diagrams, outlines, process flowcharts and mind-maps. Great for sharing and sketching out ideas.
Twitter Twitter has received a lot of media attention recently and seems to have broken out of its niche position. Users choose to receive ‘tweets’ or messages from other users who post the messages. Mobile operators in Ireland have chosen to charge users for receiving messages on their mobile phones, so the usage has generally been limited to pcs, which is a pity.
Delicious This application allows users to share their ‘bookmarks’. A user can save their favourite webpages and allow other users to view them. This allows users to find sites of specialist interest.
Video conferencing There are many applications that allow video and audio conferencing. Some of these are google, skype, msn messenger, as well as many fee-based conferencing applications. Person-to-person conferencing is still very important when starting projects, but when the participants know each other well video conferencing can provide a very convenient and productive environment for collaborating.
Viewpath This application allows users to share project planning information. Team members can be assigned tasks and can share calendars. It offers a great opportunity for project planning for free. It is free to use but there is a charge if you wish to archive projects.

The Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government has a number of consultation calls that will be of interest to IEN members. Full details can be found at www.ien.ie/consultation

Proposed incineration cap

In advance of finalising the Strategic Environmental Assessment a consultation on Section 60 Policy Direction on a proposed cap to incineration capacity as a proportion of municipal waste arisings (MSW) and other matters has been launched. The deadline for submissions is 17th July, 2009

Consultation on cessation of turf cutting.

Opinions are being sought to bring about the cessation of turf cutting. The group managing the consultation have a number of issues on which they are seeking input and advice.
Funds are a key issue, including where funds should be sourced from; should compensation should be paid, how much, in what form and to whom; should the State buy out all interest in the bogs or enter into management agreements, long term leases, or other arrangements?
Ongoing management of the sites is also a major issue. How should the State restore these bogs? How can it ensure access to all parts of the bogs to undertake necessary restorative works?
Other issues include the value of bogs in terms of climate change mitigation/adaptation by, for example, realising the sequestration potential / avoided emissions).

Meeting Ireland’s electricity needs post-2020: consultation extended

This consultation call has been extended until 20th July, 2009.

By Andrew Jackson. Friends of the Irish Environment
Following a package meeting on 19 June between the European Commission and the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, three officials from the Commission met with individuals and representatives from a range of Irish environmental NGOs.  While the issues covered were wide-ranging, to my mind a number of key points emerged.
First, the Commission is set to continue with its current policy of refusing to release Letters of Formal Notice and Reasoned Opinions (formal documents in EU infringement proceedings) until after a case has been closed.  This was not unexpected (it is the Commission’s longstanding position), but it is disappointing nonetheless.  Individuals and NGOs could play a useful, enhanced role in ensuring compliance with EU environmental law if they were aware of the arguments being raised by the Commission and the government in ongoing cases.
Second, and perhaps most significantly, the Commission told the meeting that it is trying to target infringement actions at areas that will have the biggest impact.  Thus, it aims to bring cases that demonstrate systematic failings as opposed to one-off breaches.  The first such case in the EU was a decision against Ireland on illegal landfills (C-494/01) – second stage proceedings (under Art. 228 of the EC Treaty), which would ultimately end with a fine, are currently ongoing to enforce the ECJ’s 2005 judgment. A more recent systematic breach example was mentioned at the meeting: C-418/04, the large Birds Directive case against Ireland decided by the ECJ in 2007.  Again, proceedings are currently ongoing at the second stage to enforce the Court’s judgment.  At paragraphs 235 to 247 of the judgment, the ECJ held that the government has failed to ensure systematically that aquaculture programmes are made subject to an appropriate assessment of impacts on SPAs (this aspect of the case was initiated by a Review carried out in 2000 by BirdWatch Ireland).  The Commission told the meeting that it is using its second stage proceedings in this case to look at the issue of aquaculture in Ireland generally.
These systematic breach cases are a relatively new concept, and they are highly significant for our purposes.  Previously, an issue could only be raised in second stage proceedings if it formed part of the Commission’s case at the first stage (i.e. before the ECJ gave its judgment establishing whether or not the government was in breach).  This is not the case with systematic breach cases.  To explain, because the ECJ has held that Ireland has systematically failed to control aquaculture licensing, the Commission can raise new examples of aquaculture impacts on Natura 2000 sites as part of the second stage proceedings to enforce the ECJ’s judgment in C-418/04.  This, the meeting was effectively told, is what is likely to happen with two specific issues that Irish NGOs have raised recently.  While this may seem a technical issue, it has significant practical implications.  By skipping the necessity for a new case (i.e. fresh first round proceedings), and instead bringing issues up at the second stage of an ongoing case (where the prospect of fines is a reality, and the government is under real pressure), several years can be shaved off the time at which the government is forced to comply.
This illustrates the fact that providing the Commission with information that establishes systematic problems is likely to have a greater impact than providing them with evidence of one-off breaches.  Thus, for example, it would be better to provide evidence of a systematic failure to control peat extraction in Natura 2000 sites than to provide the Commission with evidence of problems in one site.  And by providing enough examples to sustain a systematic breach case, an individual or NGO can open the floodgates, in effect, allowing others to provide examples that can be addressed as part of the same case, even after a judgment from the ECJ.  This was clearly the case with C-418/04: thanks to BirdWatch Ireland’s work in 2000, aquaculture issues raised by other NGOs will now be dealt with much more rapidly than would otherwise have been the case.  It points, I think, to the need for us to act strategically, and to coordinate campaigns where possible.
The third significant point is linked to the second.  The Commission told the meeting that it feels there is a vacuum on the NGO side in Ireland.  Our emphasis, they said, seems to be on raising fresh problems rather than proposing solutions or using leverage when opportunities arise.  The Commission cited the Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill as something NGOs could usefully focus on in that regard.  Specific areas to focus on might be: (1) the Bill’s enforcement provisions: e.g. we could usefully try to ensure that the new Act contains a proper monitoring and detection component; (2) assessment of land use plans re impacts on Natura 2000 sites: e.g. what plans will be included – NDP as well as local plans?  And what about plans that are already running (e.g. County Development Plans) – will they be called in?
Another example of where we might be able to use our influence strategically is infringement proceedings at the second stage (i.e. after the ECJ has found the government in breach).  In these cases we have real leverage to effect change, since the government is inevitably under significant pressure to comply with the Court’s judgment in order to avoid fines.  So, for example, now would be the time to raise as many aquaculture/Natura 2000 issues as possible, since the Commission has a hook to hang these on: i.e. second stage proceedings in C-418/04.  Similar points could be made regarding other cases at the second stage.  The status of all 28 ongoing infringement cases against Ireland – including an indication of those in which we currently have most leverage – is here: http://www.friendsoftheirishenvironment.net/cmsfiles/files/library/eu_infringments_2005__2009.pdf.
The fourth key point raised by the Commission concerned access to justice, and the relatively limited resources available to the Commission in playing its enforcement role.  Owing to the prohibitive costs of bringing cases before the national courts in Ireland, the Commission seems to bear a disproportionate burden in enforcing EU law.  While the Commission was thanked at the meeting for its efforts in that regard, there are clearly limitations to what it can do, and it would prefer to see more cases brought before the national courts.  For that reason, it is prioritising work to improve access to justice in Ireland, which will include fresh infringement proceedings if necessary (there is a case ongoing at the moment – C-427/07; while the ECJ’s judgment is pending, it does not seem likely that the Commission will win this particular case).  In terms of any future action, now would be the time to submit issues to the Commission regarding access to justice in Ireland: e.g. how do interim measures (i.e. injunctions) work in Ireland?  Are they compatible with the Aarhus Convention?  Etc. etc.
Finally, some miscellaneous points are worth noting: (1) The Commission mentioned that it is producing guidelines regarding wind farms and Natura 2000 sites (whether the guidelines will cover other renewable energy projects was not clear) – the guidelines should be out later this year.  (2) The Commission stated that it will only seek interim measures (e.g. an injunction preventing a project from going ahead pending a decision from the ECJ) against a Member State in exceptional circumstances.  The risks of taking an interim measures case that the Commission is not sure to win are too great, the meeting was told.  (3) Next year a full EU strategy on invasive species is likely to be launched.
All in all, an interesting, productive meeting.
Andrew Jackson