Mr. Janez Poto?nik:

I may have overstated the committee's role in my introductory statement. The committee can basically shape policy through its engagements, which are connected to the semester process. I know that this process varies country by country but I would encourage the committee to go broadly in that direction. In that way, the committee can shape the Presidency for the first half of the year but also how we run the entire semester process in the future. The committee must be clear on the need for the integration of policies. That, for me, is the most urgent and important issue to understand. We must integrate the policies and more explicitly, integrate environmental concern into other policies because prevention is better than cure, as the saying goes. If we prevent problems then we will not be forced to cure them. We must work to remove the incorrect perception that environmental concerns are an obstacle to the development of business.

While climate change is not technically my area, I consider it part of my area because it is an environmental issue. I believe the committee will have quite a full agenda during the Irish Presidency in terms of climate issues and it is very important that we continue to work with my colleague, the Commissioner for Climate Action, Ms Connie Hedegaard. When I was given my current portfolio, climate change was a dominant story. Through the integration of energy and climate policies and dealing with those issues simultaneously, we have developed some good and necessary solutions. That is how policy should be developed. At the same time, climate change is a stimulus to seek further resource efficiency, particularly energy efficiency. We must determine how we can integrate environmental, industrial, energy, agricultural, transport and fisheries policies with other policies which bring economic benefits in a way that does not negatively impact on the environment. That is the idea of resource efficiency which I am trying to replicate. I have always been a firm believer that we must pursue climate change policies because climate change is a reality and is caused by human activities. We have no alternative but to respond.

Regarding the peat bogs, I will start by explaining the role of the Commission in this area because I can see from the Deputy's question that there are different interpretations of its role. Member states agree legislation together at EU level. The Commission proposes legislation but we cannot accept it because that is not our role. It is accepted by the member states and by the European Parliament. We are then given the role of protecting or upholding the legislation. Sometimes we do not have an easy task in that regard because in many situations, we are dealing with issues that are nationally sensitive. We try to understand those sensitivities but at the same time we must deal with issues from the perspective of all 27 member states. That is our job and what we are paid to do. It is also our obligation under the treaties of the European Union. If some member states are not entirely fulfilling their legal obligations, it is my duty to react and that is also the case with the Irish bogs. These are special areas of conservation which are, according to the habitats directive, protected.

I must be clear, though, that the Commission is not against turf cutting across the entire country. We are talking about 4% of bogs, if I remember correctly, which are in the protected mode, while the rest can be freely worked on. It is also important to understand that according to the scientific analysis undertaken by Irish scientists, approximately 35% of bogs were destroyed in the last ten years. Raised bogs are a major part of Ireland's cultural and environmental heritage and Irish people should be proud of that. At the end of the day, it is absolutely in the interests of Ireland that those bogs are protected for future generations and are kept in a solid state. They are an important carbon sink and contain within them an ecological biodiversity which does not exist elsewhere. It was not the Commission which proposed the definition of the areas in question. It was done on the basis of scientific facts proposed by the member states. The Commission was given the unpleasant task of delivering the law. That is where we stand right now.

I acknowledge the progress that has been made in 2012 in phasing out turf cutting on Irish raised bogs that are protected special areas of conservation. However, there are clearly still incidences of illegal cutting which underline the urgent need to deal with the problem of enforcement. The proposed national raised bog management plan provides a very important framework for action. It will be essential to make progress as soon as possible in developing this plan, especially in advance of the next turf cutting season. In order to help ensure its success, the Commission hopes that it will also be possible to engage as many turf cutters as possible in this process and that a mechanism to achieve this is put in place very soon.

We are very much in favour of an inclusive process and of something that will include the Turf Cutters and Contractors Association in the process as well. Reference was made to the rights, compensation schemes and relocation, but these are not things we decide on. Decisions with regard to how they are managed are made at home. Basically, the Commission must keep an eye on things and ensure that everything according to the habitats directive is done in practice.

First and foremost, the national plan must aim to ensure effective management and restoration of the bogs. The Commission will consider any proposal from Ireland to apply the derogation system set out in Article 6(4) of the habitats directive with regard to raised bogs and special areas of conservation. This should be based on an overall network solution, involve a thorough application of the criteria for the use of the derogation and allow sufficient time for the Commission to evaluate a proposal and deliver its opinion. Therefore, inasmuch as we can see how things stand, it does not appear feasible that such an opinion could be delivered before the 2013 cutting season. This is because with this procedure the focus should be absolutely on the management plan and on building a consensus on how to deal with the problem. I have always underlined that it is important to get long-lasting solutions rather than solutions that will divide people. We want solutions that will basically bring peace on some of these questions.