TARA: EU vs Ireland

Photos

Over 1000 turn up to create a human harp at Tara

see larger image

uploaded by celticways

Good news for lovers of Irish heritage!
The European Commission has decided to refer Ireland to the European Court of Justice (ECJ), citing the Irish government's action regarding the routing of the M3 fwy through the Hill of Tara region as a prime example of how it has failed to conform to EU law.

"The commission decision to start legal action will force the Government to defend its position at the ECJ in Luxembourg. If it loses the legal case and does not amend its laws to conform with the relevant EU directive, it could eventually face heavy fines. Ireland currently faces 37 infringement proceedings for breaching environmental directives." –excerpt from Irish Times report, below. 

The reason the campaign to save the Hill of Tara has been so prolonged is that there is, and always has been, a SHORTER alternate route - one that could better serve other major country towns.
(view map here: http://www.globalartscollective.org/acf/saga.htm
The alternate routes to the West of the Hill of Tara could run straight, rather than circuitous - as is the case with the current unnecessarily LONGER route around the Hill of Tara (see the map). The area to the West of the hill of Tara is an environmentally friendly location, and would make for a shorter commute and less traffic through an already congested convergence of roadways.

The existing N3 is an average two lane road, built within the existing contours and shape of the valley. However the proposed M3 would be radically different. "Unlike the current and established road system the four-lane motorway and major floodlit interchange will not respect the topographical contours of the landscape but will be ramped or gouged through the valley as required to meet motorway construction standards. And, in subsequent years, industrial parks and housing estates will inevitably spring-up around the purpose built interchange.., a little over 1.5km to the north of Tara's 'Banqueting Hall'." (The Geophysical Survey of the M3 Toll-Motorway Corridor, from Journal of the Meath Archaeological and Historical Society) .

Tara at present is surrounded by green fields in the heart of rich farming land. If the M3 is built through Tara, the damage will truly be irreparable, because settlement and industrialisation will inevitably follow, since Tara is so close to Dublin. If the NRA has its way Tara will be a tiny hill surrounded by spreading urbanisation. It is also important to note that the major floodlit interchange, only 1.5 km from the hill itself, would take up more than 25 acres (10 hectares) in size. We already know that a shopping mall developer has purchased 200 acres on all four corners of the proposed interchange. Suffice it to say, many laws have been broken re. planning for this route, including Meath County Council planning guidelines.

Here is an informative article from the Irish Times followed by the full text of the EU Press Release.

Letters make a real difference!

Take the time to write a letter or two to the Irish authorities, and to the media, and especially to the European Parliament Commissioner for the Environment: Stavros Dimas <stavros.dimas@europa.eu>
and to MEP (Member of European Parliament, representing South Ireland) Kathy Sinnott <kathysinnott@iol.ie>
Thank them, and ask them to thank the other members of the EU Petition Committee for their ongoing efforts on behalf of Tara.
All contact information here: http://www.globalartscollective.org/acf/act_now.htm

Slán aChara!
Mairéid
Anam Cara for Tara arts action campaign
(Anam Cara means "Soul Friend" in Irish Gaelic)
for The GlobalArtsCollective.org
http://www.globalartscollective.org/acf/about.htm

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

EU to take action over handling of Tara route for M3

The Irish Times
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Jamie Smyth in Brussels



The European Commission is expected to begin legal action against the Government today over the manner in which it has proceeded to build the M3 motorway near the Hill of Tara.

The decision will provide a boost to campaigners who are trying to force Minister for the Environment John Gormley to consider re-routing the motorway.

The legal move is not expected to halt the construction of the road, but it will force the Government to defend its position at Europe's highest court, a process that could eventually lead to the imposition of fines if it loses the case.

Environment commissioner Stavros Dimas will tell his commissioner colleagues at a meeting in Brussels today that the National Monuments Act in the Republic does not offer enough protection for important archaeological sites.

He will also highlight alleged weaknesses in Irish law that split decision-making between Irish planning authorities and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for industrial projects.

He cites the Government's action at the Hill of Tara as a prime example of how it fails to conform to EU law. In a draft decision, which requires the approval of commissioners before taking effect, Mr Dimas refers Ireland to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) over these shortcomings.

"The commission considers Ireland's approach to decisions involving the
destruction or removal of historic structures and archaeological monuments to be in contravention of the directive," says an explanatory note on the decision seen by The Irish Times.

The relevant EU directive says there must be a proper assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment. The commission believes a decision not to order a second environmental impact assessment when a potentially significant archaeological site was discovered at Lismullen, close to Tara, was "in contravention of the directive".

"Because the prehistoric site was only identified in 2007, its significance could not be taken into account in a 2003 assessment of the motorway project," says the commission's explanatory note.

Despite the EU executive's concerns, in June the Government ordered that the Lismullen site be excavated without a second environmental impact assessment. It said no delay was possible due to the fragile nature of the site.

But campaigners hoping the commission would intervene directly to force the Government to halt construction of the M3 may be disappointed. The draft commission decision refers only to weaknesses in Irish legislation and does not question the Government's choice of route for the M3. Neither does it
seek any kind of court injunction that would force the Government to stop work on the motorway.

The Government has argued that the motorway is a vital piece of national infrastructure and choosing an alternative route for the M3 would cause delays and cost up to 200 million extra.

Campaigners have fought a vocal campaign against the motorway, which they claim will spoil the Hill of Tara for future generations.

The commission document claims that when decisions are being taken on proposed incinerators and other industrial projects, "Irish rules do not guarantee that interactions such as those between pollution-control measures and the landscape will be adequately assessed and taken into account. There are risks that outcomes required by the directive will not always be achieved," it concludes.

The commission decision to start legal action will force the Government to defend its position at the ECJ in Luxembourg. If it loses the legal case and does not amend its laws to conform with the relevant EU directive, it could eventually face heavy fines.

Ireland currently faces 37 infringement proceedings for breaching environmental directives.

WRITE LETTERS TO THE EDITOR OF THE IRISH TIMES: lettersed@irish-times.ie
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

EU COMMISSION PRESS RELEASE
Date:  17/10/2007
Brussels
Ireland: Commission to bring environmental impact assessment case to the European Court of Justice

The European Commission has decided to refer Ireland to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in a case concerning European Community (EC) legislation on environmental impact assessments. The case concerns provisions of Irish legislation governing the approval of incinerators and other large industrial projects and provisions governing the removal of important archaeological sites. The Commission is happy to announce that steps taken by the Irish authorities have brought the Commission to close a separate case concerning nitrates. The Commission also welcomes a co-operation document agreed between Ireland and the United Kingdom on combating illegal waste exports.

EU Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas said: "I am disappointed that Ireland has not accepted the Commission view that improvements are needed in its legislation on impact assessments in order to better safeguard, and give the public more say in decisions affecting, its rich archaeological heritage, and to better guarantee that industrial projects will be comprehensively assessed."
Court referral on Irish environmental impact assessment rules
The Commission is referring Ireland to the ECJ over shortcomings in Irish legislation used to implement the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive[1]. Under the directive, Member States are obliged to carry out environmental impact assessments (EIA) before certain types of public and private projects believed to have a significant impact on the environment are authorised. The Commission's case is divided into two parts.

First, the Commission considers Ireland's approach to decisions involving the removal of historic structures and archaeological monuments to be in contravention of the directive. The directive expressly mentions effects on archaeological heritage and the Commission is concerned that Ireland interprets the directive as not applying to certain separate decisions involving the removal of structures and monuments in order to facilitate infrastructure and other project types covered by the directive. In a final warning sent to Ireland in June 2007, the Commission mentioned by way of example the lack of an assessment carried out for a 2007 decision to remove a national monument situated at Lismullin in the path of the M3 motorway project near Tara in County Meath. Because the pre-historic site was only identified in 2007, its significance could not be taken into account in a 2003 assessment of the motorway project.In response, Ireland argues that the ministerial direction in relation to the excavation and preservation by record of the national monument in question does not constitute an element of the development consent for the M3 under the provisions of the Directive.

Secondly, the Commission considers that, because of weaknesses in Irish legislation splitting decision-making between Irish planning authorities and Ireland's Environmental Protection Agency, there are risks that outcomes required by the directive will not always be achieved. When decisions are being taken on proposed incinerators and other industrial projects, for example, Irish rules do not guarantee that inter-actions such as those between pollution-control measures and the landscape will be adequately assessed and taken into account. In its response to the Commission's June 2007 final written warning Ireland strongly defends its project approval procedure.
Closure of case on the Nitrates Directive

The adoption of higher national sanctions this summer has allowed the Commission to close its case against Ireland for breaching the Nitrates Directive[2]. In March 2004 Ireland was condemned by the ECJ for not putting in place an action programme to reduce nitrate pollution from agricultural run-off[3]. Since then Ireland has adopted new legislation to give effect to an action programme. This involves requirements to safely store slurries, prohibit land-spreading during the winter and avoid excessive use of fertilizers.
Co-operation document on illegal waste exports
The Commission welcomes the adoption of a co-operation document aimed at strengthening contacts between Ireland and the United Kingdom to combat illegal waste exports. In 2004, the Commission contacted both Member States after becoming aware of significant illegal waste exports from Ireland to Northern Ireland. Following this, both States worked together to deal with the problem and have agreed on a co-operation document.
Legal Process
Article 226 of the Treaty gives the Commission powers to take legal action against a Member State that is not respecting its obligations.

If the Commission considers that there may be an infringement of EU law that warrants the opening of an infringement procedure, it addresses a "Letter of Formal Notice" (first written warning) to the Member State concerned, requesting it to submit its observations by a specified date, usually two months.

In the light of the reply or absence of a reply from the Member State concerned, the Commission may decide to address a "Reasoned Opinion" (final written warning) to the Member State. This clearly and definitively sets out the reasons why it considers there to have been an infringement of EU law, and calls upon the Member State to comply within a specified period, usually two months.

If the Member State fails to comply with the Reasoned Opinion, the Commission may decide to bring the case before the Court of Justice. Where the Court of Justice finds that the Treaty has been infringed, the offending Member State is required to take the measures necessary to conform.

Article 228 of the Treaty gives the Commission power to act against a Member State that does not comply with a previous judgement of the European Court of Justice. The article also allows the Commission to ask the Court to impose a financial penalty on the Member State concerned.

For rulings by the European Court of Justice see:
http://curia.eu.int/en/content/juris/index.htm


----------------------------------------------------------

[1] Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment

[2] Directive 91/676/EEC concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources

[3] Case C-396/01, Commission v Ireland