DUBLIN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

LAW ASSIGNMENT

Property Economics Degree (DT110) 2012 Year 2

Law MR FRANK CORCORAN LECTURER

DECLARATION
We/I certify that all the material in this report which is not our own work has been identified with the appropriate acknowledgement and referencing.

____________________________________ Paul Dennis

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

We would like to express our sincere gratitude for the direction, support and advice to all the lectures and staff of the Dublin Institute of Technology.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION .................................................................................................................................................. 2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ...................................................................................................................................... 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS........................................................................................................................................ 4 TABLE OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................................... 6 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................... 7 1 IRISH LEGAL SYSTEM ............................................................................................................................... 8 1.1 IN IRELAND THE LAW IS ................................................................................................................................... 9 1.1.1 Constitutional.................................................................................................................................. 9 1.1.2 Legislature....................................................................................................................................... 9 1.1.3 Judiciary .......................................................................................................................................... 9 1.2 ARTICLE 29 .................................................................................................................................................. 9 1.2.1 Corner Stone ................................................................................................................................... 9 2 UNITED NATIONS .................................................................................................................................. 10 2.1 2.2 2.3 3 MEMBER NATIONS ...................................................................................................................................... 10 RULE OF LAW ............................................................................................................................................. 10 INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE................................................................................................................. 10

EUROPEAN UNION ................................................................................................................................ 11 3.1 3.2 1.1 1.2 3.3 3.4 THE EUROPEAN UNION MEMBER STATES ARE:................................................................................................... 11 THE MAP................................................................................................................................................... 11 BASICS ...................................................................................................................................................... 11 LEGAL SYSTEM ............................................................................................................................................ 11 EU LEGAL ENFORCEMENT ............................................................................................................................. 12 TREATY OF AMSTERDAMN............................................................................................................................. 12

THE AARHUS CONVENTION .................................................................................................................. 13 4.1 4.2 BREACH ..................................................................................................................................................... 13 THREE PILLARS............................................................................................................................................ 13

KYOTO PROTOCAL ......................................................................................................................................... 14 4.3 4.4 4.5 5 WHAT IS IT ................................................................................................................................................. 14 ENFORCEABILITY.......................................................................................................................................... 14 FUTURE OF KYOTO....................................................................................................................................... 14

REPORT ................................................................................................................................................. 15 5.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................... 22 5.2 SUSTAINABILITY........................................................................................................................................... 22 5.2.1 What is Sustainability? ................................................................................................................. 22 5.2.2 Application of Sustainability ......................................................................................................... 22 5.2.3 Legal Enforcement of Sustainability.............................................................................................. 22 5.3 IRELAND .................................................................................................................................................... 23 5.3.1 National Development Plan .......................................................................................................... 23

5.3.2 National Spatial Plan .................................................................................................................... 23 5.3.3 Fingal County Council .................................................................................................................... 24 5.4 PARTIES INVOLVED ...................................................................................................................................... 24 5.5 NEVITT - LUSK - ANTI DUMP GROUP ............................................................................................................... 24 5.6 AN BORD PLEANALA .................................................................................................................................... 24 5.7 FINGAL COUNTY COUNCIL ............................................................................................................................. 24 5.7.1 Law Agent ..................................................................................................................................... 24 5.8 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY .......................................................................................................... 24 5.9 COSTS ....................................................................................................................................................... 25 5.10 NEVITT-LUSK ANTI DUMP GROUP RECOGNISED ........................................................................................... 26 5.11 CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................................... 26 ACRONYMS .................................................................................................................................................... 28 6 APPENDIX 1 .......................................................................................................................................... 29 6.1 7 LINKS TO ALL THE IRISH GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS ........................................................................................ 29

APPENDIX 2 .......................................................................................................................................... 30 7.1 THREE PILLARS OF THE AARHUS CONVENTION................................................................................................... 30

11

APPENDIX 3 .......................................................................................................................................... 32 11.1 EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES AND AGENCYS .............................................................................. 32 11.1.1 Institutions and bodies ............................................................................................................. 32 11.1.2 Agencies ................................................................................................................................... 32

12

APPENDIX 4 .......................................................................................................................................... 35 12.1 CO-DECISION PROCEDURE AMSTERDAM TREATY .......................................................................................... 35

13 14

APPENDIX 5 .......................................................................................................................................... 36 LAW JOURNAL ...................................................................................................................................... 15 14.1 IRISH PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAW JOURNAL .................................................................................. 15

15

REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................................... 46

TABLE OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1 ................................................................................................................................................................... 8 FIGURE 2 CONSTITUTION OF IRELAND (DOT, 2012) ......................................................................................................... 9 FIGURE 4 UN RULE OF LAW (NATIONS, 2012) .............................................................................................................. 10 FIGURE 5 INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE.................................................................................................................. 10 FIGURE 3 UN LOGO (GOOGLE IMAGES, 2010) ............................................................................................................... 10 FIGURE 6 MAP EUROPEAN UNION COUNTRIES (UNION, EUROPA COUNTRIES, 2012) ...................................................... 11 FIGURE 8 THE FUTURE WITHOUT CHANGE ...................................................................................................................... 14 FIGURE 7 UNFCC ..................................................................................................................................................... 14 FIGURE 9 TABLE ENFORCEMENT OF SUSTAINABILITY ......................................................................................................... 22 FIGURE 14 GATEWAYS & HUBS (IRISH SPATIAL STRATEGY, 2007) ...................................................................................... 23 FIGURE 11MAP OF AREA (GOOGLE, 2012) .................................................................................................................. 25 FIGURE 12 FINGAL CO CO MINUETS (FINGAL COUNTY COUNCIL, 2012) .......................................................................... 25 FIGURE 13 AWARDING 30,000 (FINGAL COUNTY COUNCIL, 2006) ............................................................................ 26 FIGURE 16 EU DECISION MAKING PROCESS (INTEGRATION, 2000) ................................................................................ 35

INTRODUCTION

This report is a comprehensive overview of sustainability as it applies to waste disposal in Ireland and how the law applies from European level down to a proposed new super dump in Fingal. This subject sustainability is not a new one but is something that has been gaining ground for a number of years now. Sustainability is something that can be applied to absolutely every field of human endeavour. People everywhere all over the planet are beginning to realise the importance of the fact that the resources we consume as a group are finite. There are now approximately 6 billion people competing for these resources. If the human population continues to consume and grow at the rates which we are it will lead to catastrophe in many different ways. Sustainability is a responsible response to a situation that is beginning to get out of control. There is a vast body of information available on this subject. In the following pages there are summaries about the organizations, agencies and bodies involved. With research having been done to establish how they fit together.

United Nation Law

European Law
Irish Law
Constitutional Legislation Civil Law Judicial Criminal Law

Supreme Court High Court Circuit Court District Court Small Claims Supreme Court
Table 1 Law graphic

1 IRISH LEGAL SYSTEM

The Irish Legal System was set up by the English and goes back hundreds of years. When the Irish State was established in 1922 the English Common Law system was taken over lock stock and barrel. It is the legal system that is still operating in Irish society to-day. The Irish Constitution is the corner stone of Law in Ireland. If any other Law contradicts the Constitution the Irish Supreme or High Court can overturn it. The European Union have been given precedence over Irish Law in the areas that they have been given permission to. These areas have been expanding with each new referendum and when there are European Directives. A directive is a legislative act of the European Union, which requires member states to achieve a particular result without dictating the means of achieving that result. It can be distinguished from regulations which are self-executing and do not require any implementing measures. Directives normally leave member states with a certain amount of leeway as to the exact rules to be adopted. Directives can be adopted by means of a variety of legislative procedures depending on their subject matter. (Union, 2012) Laws made in higher Courts in Ireland bind downwards. When new decisions are made in Court all the other Courts below must go by that decision. The levels within the Courts System of Ireland can be divided into a hierarchy and can be seen in Table 1 Law graphic on page 7. Amounts up to 6,000, will be dealt with in the Small Claims and then the costs increase on the way up-wards through the hierarchy of Courts. The costs are approximately Supreme High up-wards from 30,000 Circuit District from 15,000 30,000 from 6,000 - 15,000 6,000

Small Claims up to

Figure 1 Bind Downwards

The Court Houses in Ireland separate into Criminal & Civil.

1.1 In Ireland the law is

1.1.1 Constitutional 1.1.2 Legislature (Oireachtas) this is the National Parliament and consists of the President and two houses, the Lower House - Dil ireann (the House of directly elected representatives of the people) and the Upper House - Seanad ireann (Senate). Executive (Government) this is the Administration of the day with executive responsibility for the running of the State through all Government Departments and other agencies. 1.1.3 Judiciary (the Courts) these are independent in the exercise of judicial functions and are subject only to the Constitution and the law (including EU Law). Fundamental rights are set out in the Constitution and, in addition, the Courts have identified other Constitutional rights not expressly specified in the Constitution. In interpreting and applying any statute or rule of law the Courts, in so far as is possible and subject to the rules of interpretation and application, are required to do so in a manner compatible with the States obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights (see European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003). (Commissioners, 2012)

1.2 Article 29
Ireland affirms its devotion to the ideal of peace and friendly co-operation amongst nations founded on international justice and morality. 2. Ireland affirms its adherence to the principle of the pacific settlement of international disputes by international arbitration or judicial determination. 3. Ireland accepts the generally recognized principles of international law as its rule of conduct in its relations with other States. (DOT, 2012) 1.2.1 Corner Stone A corner stone of Irish Law is the Irish Constitution.

Figure 2 Constitution of Ireland (DOT, 2012)

2 UNITED NATIONS
The term was first coined Franklin .D Roosevelt in 1942 during the second World War when representatives of 26 Nations pledged to continue fighting against the Axis Powers in the War. The League of Nations preceded the UN and was founded under similar conditions. The League of Nations formally dissolved itself on 18 April 1946 and transferred its mission to the United Nations. (Google Images, 2010)
Figure 3 UN Logo (Google Images, 2010)

2.1 Member Nations

A considerable number of Countries have joined the United Nations. It indicates that the organisation is very powerful. The list of members can be found in Appendix 5 on page 36.

2.2 Rule of Law

Figure 4 UN Rule of Law (Nations, 2012)

2.3 International Court of Justice

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations (UN). It was established in June 1945 by the Charter of the United Nations and began work in April 1946. The seat of the Court is at the Peace Palace in The Hague (Netherlands). Of the six principal organs of the United Nations, it is the only one not located in New York (United States of America). (ICJ, 2012)
Figure 5 International Court of Justice

10

3 EUROPEAN UNION

3.1 The European Union member states are:

Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Estonia, Ireland, Greece, Spain, France, Italy, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxemburg, Hungry, Malta, Netherlands, Austria, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia and Finland.

3.2 The Map

1.1 Basics
The European Union is an economic and political union of 27 member States. A full list of the Institutions, bodies and agencies of the Union can be found in Appendix on page 32

1.2 Legal System

This is only a very broad overview of the European Legal System. The Courts of Justice in the EU are

Figure 6 Map European Union Countries

(Union, Europa Countries, 2012)

Court of Justice - General Court - European Union Civil Service Tribunal

These are the Courts of the European Union, they are located around Europe. The legal enforceability of the European Union can be seen below in Article 288 taken from

The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union LINK to THE TREATY.pdf

11

3.3 EU Legal Enforcement

Article 288
(ex Article 249 TEC)

To exercise the Unions competences, the institutions shall adopt regulations, directives, decisions, recommendations and opinions. A regulation shall have general application. It shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.EN 30.3.2010 Official Journal of the European Union C
83/171

Recommendations and opinions shall have no binding force. A directive shall be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each Member State to which it is addressed, but shall leave to the national authorities the choice of form and methods. A decision shall be binding in its entirety. A decision which specifies those to whom it is addressed shall be binding only on them. (Union, Europa.EU, 2012) The above regulations, directives, decisions, recommendations and opinions are applicable only in areas that Ireland have given permission for them to be. This is done through refrendums changing the constitution. The same applies to the legal relationship between the United Nations and the European Union. The European Union are only answerable to the United Nations where they have agreeed to be.

3.4 Treaty of Amsterdamn

Is a treaty within the European Union between the member States and it made substantial changes to the Masstricht treaty. Some of the stated aims of the Treaty of Amsterdam are to increase security, freedom and justice within the Euro area. The Amsterdam Treaty also introduced a new framework for making decisions in the European Union. Often there were disagreements between the Parliament and Council. A new procedure called Co-Decision Procedure Amsterdam Treaty is now how decisions are made. The frame work of the procedure can be seen in Appendix 4 on page 35.

12

4 THE AARHUS CONVENTION

Ireland ratified the UNECE Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, commonly referred to as the Aarhus Convention, on 20th June 2012. The Aarhus Convention was adopted on 25th June 1998 in the Danish city of Aarhus at the Fourth Ministerial Conference in the 'Environment for Europe' process. It lays down a set of basic rules to promote the involvement of citizens in environmental matters and improve enforcement of environmental law. The Convention is legally binding on States that have become Parties to it. As the European Union is a Party, the Convention also applies to the EU institutions. Ireland signed the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters on 25 June 1998. (The Department of the Enviornment, Community and Local Government, 2007)

4.1 Breach
In the event that the European Union breach the Aarhus Convention it will be held accountable by the United Nations. In the legal relationship between the United Nations and the European Union. The European Union are only answerable to the United Nations where they have agreeed to be.

4.2 Three Pillars

Access to Information

Public Participation in Decision Making

Access to Justice

Refer to Appendix 2 on page 30 for more detail on the three pillars.

13

KYOTO PROTOCAL
4.3 What is it
The Kyoto Protocol is an historical agreement in that it was the first international agreement in which many of the the world's industrial nations concluded a verifiable agreement to reduce their emissions of six greenhouse gases in order to prevent global warming. The major feature of the Kyoto Figure 7 UNFCC Protocol is that it sets binding targets for 37 industrialized countries and the European community for reducing emissions. These amount to an average of five per cent against 1990 levels over the five-year period 2008-2012. The Kyoto Protocol was adopted in Kyoto, Japan, on 11 December 1997 and entered into force on 16 February 2005. 184 Parties of the Convention have ratified its Protocol to date. It is an international agreement linked to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. (Agency, 2012)

4.4 Enforceability
The Kyoto Protocol allows for greenhouse gas emission reductions to be carried out in projects implemented in other countries. These projects can be carried out through the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and Joint Implementation (JI). These project-based mechanisms allow Parties to the Kyoto Protocol to implement emission reduction projects in other countries in exchange for credits which can be used towards achieving the Kyoto target. (Agency, 2012)

4.5 Future of Kyoto

Unfortunately the future of the Kyoto Protocol in now in doubt with the exit of Canada from the agreement, Canada did not meet its targets with the result that they were fined 14 billion. It was considered to much hence the exit.

Figure 8 The Future without Change

14

5 LAW JOURNAL
5.1 Irish Planning and Environmental Law Journal
1999

Can EIA Deliver Sustainable Development?

John Fry, Environmental Resource Management, UCD Sustainable: capable of being kept going on an indefinite basisnot one week, year, century, but indefinitely. Jonathon Porritt It is no longer sufficient simply to mitigate the negative effects of a project. Incompletely mitigated effects must be off-set by more-than-compensatory green gain. Barry Sadler Two things stuck in my mind after the International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA) conference in Christchurch, New Zealand, last April. First up was Riki Therivel, the American EIA theoretician from Oxford Brookes University. Effectively asking the workshop group to examine their consciences, she pointed out that if we really subscribed to sustainable development and cutting global carbon dioxide levels we would never meet again. Approaching from a different angle, the Director of the U.K. s Institute of Environmental Assessment, Barry Sadler stated that is no longer sufficient simply to mitigate the negative effects of a project. In future, any residual negative effects must be offset by compensatory green gain, e.g. residual habitat destruction would have to be offset by equivalent habitat conservation or restoration in the immediate vicinity. The alternative is that even the best-mitigated projects will contribute to a gradual erosion of environmental quality and that is non-sustainable. Sustainable development has become the catch -phrase of the 1990s, with each government, institution, and corporate body striving to prove that they can meaningfully deliver on this ideal but usually with only minor changes in their policies and practice. The green arch-critic Jonathon Porritt 1 has pointed out that standard English dictionaries define sustainable along the lines of: capable of being kept going on an indefinite basis. He emphasises that this means not one week, year, century, but indefinitely a meaning which is rarely reflected in its diverse use in the environmental context. Following the adoption of sustainable development as a goal of the E.U., the then Taoiseach Albert Reynolds alluded to environmental impact assessment as the procedure by which this could be achieved. There were two inherent problems with this statement of faith: (1) the EIA Directive 85/337/EEC 2 and Ireland s principal transposing Regulations 3 predated the general concern with sustainable development and do not mention the concept; (2) current EIA procedures are project-based and, by definition, most projects have a finite life-span and are not inherently sustainable. Questions then arise of whether EIA really does address sustainability, and to what extent the procedures laid down in the Directives can be interpreted or focused through the Irish regulations in order to deliver this. An opportunity to do this presents itself in conjunction with the need to transpose the amending Directive 97/11/EC. 4

THE CONCEPT OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

There is some debate as to when and where the term sustainable development originated: my own suggestion is that it was first coined by Barbara Ward as part of the documentation for the 1972 Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment. 5

15

Be that as it may, the concept was largely ignored until it was publicised in the socalled Brundtland Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development. 6 This had been commissioned as a scene-setter for the 1992 World Conference on Environment and Development in Rio which produced Agenda 21. 7 Brundtland s much quoted definition of sustain able development aspires to intergenerational equity: development which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Unfortunately, this wording is almost impossible to get to grips with on an administrative basis. 8 However, the need for equity has been restated by giving it socio-economic or ecological interpretations: the well being of today s generation should not be increased a t the expense of future generations or, in more tangible terms: improving the quality of life within the carrying capacity of the supporting ecosystem. 9 Such definitions were not only easier to grasp, they also pointed to the next stage, that of allowing sectoral experts to devise indicators by which the performance of any strategy for sustainability could be tested. 10 The theoreticians went on to distinguish between hard and soft sustainable development. Adopting the more extreme hard form would allow for no loss of the planet s natural capital; the more pragmatic soft version recognises that any form of development will consume natural resources, but demands that these be replaced by compensatory increases in man-made capital. In reality, because most manmade projects have a finite life-span the developmental value of the man-made product must significantly exceed the resource inputs. The ensuing academic debate has been protracted and heated, but it is generally accepted that there are at least four components to sustainability: ecosystem maintenance pollution control preservation of genetic diversity, and rational utilisation of resources. A fifth, less widely discussed component is the maintenance of culture(s). In practice this does not mean bolstering an existing culture, but maintaining those mechanisms that allow for cultural continuity and continuing cultural evolution. Commentators are also generally agreed that it is possible to identify the important attributes of sustainable development. Any sustainability strategy should therefore embrace or facilitate: inter-generational equity cohesion between different sections of national society achieving even distribution of benefits of development maximising human resources/minimising natural resource use conserving the stock of natural capital (conservation, recycling and recovery) optimising local resource use long life products/effective product life-cycle analysis restitution of damage green gain (for environmental degradation or non-renewable resource use) the precautionary principle.

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AND EIA 16

In December 1992, the E.U. Council of Ministers approved the Fifth Environmental Action Programme, 11 which defined sustainable development as a: policy for continued economic and social development without detriment to the environment and the natural resources on the quality of which continued human activity and further development depend. However, the concept was formally integrated into E.U. policy by the Treaty on European Union 1992 (the Maastricht Treaty), which has the need to promoteeconomic and social development which is sustainable as one of its objectives. This was followed by the adoption of a qualified version of sustainable development as an objective of the Irish EPA, 12 and the previously mentioned expressions of confidence in the capacity of EIA to facilitate the concept. From the theoretical perspective, such new-found faith could be well-founded. Amongst other ground-breaking provisions, the 1969 US Natural Environment Policy Act (NEPA) specified that each Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) had to cover: the relationships between local short-term uses of man s environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity. Given the fact that it was produced in 1985 before the Rio Conference, it is understandable that Directive 85/337/EEC makes no reference to sustainable development by name. However, neither does it make a concise statement of broad sustainability concerns which could be directly equated with either NEPA s philosophical intent or with sustainable development as we now understand the concept. Again, not surprisingly, sustainable development is not mentioned in the main Irish EIA Regulations 13 although it was addressed when the EPA Guidelines and Advice Notes on the preparation of EISs were produced in 1995. 14 The amending Directive 97/11/EC does specifically mention the concept, but only in one of the recitals, and it gives no guidance as to how the sustainability of a proposal should be assessed. Despite its shortcomings in this area, 885/337/EEC does incorporate several of the theoretical components of sustainable development. In its various parts it refers to: environmental and ecosystem maintenance (Recital 3 protection of the environment; Recital 11 ecosystems) pollution control (Recital 1 prevention 6f pollution) preservation of genetic diversity (Recital 11 health, diversity of species, reproductive capacity of the ecosystem; Article 3; Annex 3 (3) impacts on flora, fauna, etc.) assessing cultural impacts (Article 3; Annex 3(3) impacts on cultural heritage, landscape) It also makes somewhat weaker reference to: elements of the precautionary principle (Recital 1 prevention at source; need to take effects into account) sustainable utilisation of resources (Annex 3 (1) nature and quantity of materials; Annex 3 (4) use of natural resources). One major constraint is that the Directive (even as amended) only provides for project-based assessment. By their very nature most projects have a finite life-span and are, by definition non-sustainable. Similarly, large quantities of non-renewable resources are utilised in the construction and operation of these projects and this is also, by definition non-sustainable. Furthermore, truly sustainable development would be primarily demand-led, rather than being the demand-creation or opportunity-led development that dominates free-market economics. Asked to account for sustainability in an EIS, what developer is going to voluntarily acknowledge that their proposals are finite, or that their primary consideration is to derive an income (if not a large profit) from the proposal?

17

HORIZONTAL SUSTAINABILITY, CUMULATIVE EFFECTS AND INTERACTIONS

The thrust of the current Directives and our national legislation is to control the overall level of development, to mitigate the impacts of any project that is approved, and to facilitate public debate about any environmental risks which are sanctioned. Unfortunately, as Barry Sadler pointed out, this approach is itself non-sustainable. Any incompletely mitigated project is one which adds to the environmental load and, whilst the Irish environment is less polluted than many of our E.U. partners, there will be a limit to how much even it can absorb. This aspect of the problem involves accounting for what can be dubbed horizontal or lateral sustainability. This largely concerns the direct effects of the project on the environment, and these are reasonably well addressed by the legislation. The EPA Advice Notes have taken a further step in this direction by identifying some of the characteristics of sustainable projects as: consequences can be (and are) predicted; alternative strategies exist if outcome is not achieved; project is revisable, haltable, reversible if adverse outcome materialises. However, horizontal sustainability also encompasses the cumulative effects or interactions of a number of local, regional or national projects. The whole question of cumulative effects has been virtually ignored in the 500 or so EISs produced in Ireland to date. This is partly due to the fact that it is weakly addressed in the Directive (even as amended), with the most important provision covering it being relegated to a footnote at the very end of Annex III (now Annex IV): This description should cover the direct effects and any indirect, secondary, cumulative, short, medium and long-term, permanent and temporary, positive and negative effects of the project. In fairness, it must be said that the need to consider cumulative effects is emphasised by the EPA Guidelines, and this was recently reinforced when the Annex III footnote was stitched into the substantive text of the Irish Regulations. 15 Forestry developments have probably attracted the most public comment on their potential cumulative effects on the landscape and ecosystems. An earlier amendment to the Regulations did attempt to address this, whilst plugging a perceived loophole that might allow a developer to circumvent EIA through a string of sub-threshold projects. 16 Unfortunately, the legal provisions are weaker when addressing the cumulative effects of superficially dissimilar projects. Where the legislation is weak, the imagination of those who produce EISs is generally weaker. To be fair, some of these criticisms can only be answered by bringing in strategic environmental assessment (SEA) of policies, plans and programmes, and by doing it in a much stronger fashion than is currently proposed by the European Commission. 17 On a positive note, the national sustainable development strategy pledges to introduce SEA over and above that required in the draft Directive although it is intriguing that the undertaking given on behalf of the then government (chapter 19) is stronger than that given on behalf of the Department of the Environment (chapter 14). 18 Horizontal sustainability also demands more serious attention to interactions. This is another topic which is poorly defined in the legislation, and more poorly treated in Irish EISs. Directive 85/337/EEC was self-contradictory about interactions, since Article 3 indicated that the EIS should consider the interactions between human beings, fauna and flora, soil, water, air, climate and the landscape, but excluded material assets and cultural heritage, whilst Annex III (3) indicates that the treatment of inter-relationship should include everything. 19 This may seem like a minor discrepancy, but it is a major conceptual difference. What should be assessed are the effects of the project on each and every component of the

18

environment, followed by consideration of all interactions within the modified environment however broadly defined. The amending Directive 97/11/EC vindicates this theoretical position and incorporates the all-embracing formula of old Annex III. In view of that, it seems strange that Irish S.I. No. 351 of 1998 reiterates the original wording on interactions even though the work was already underway on regulations for transposing the amending Directive. Despite its shortcomings, there is another aspect in which the EIA Directive facilitates horizontal sustainability and that is through the harmonisation of procedures within and beyond the E.U. First, to the extent that it derived from NEPA, it brought Western Europe somewhat in line with North American practice. Secondly, it provided a single, reasonably coherent framework for the application of EIA over most of Western Europe now encompassing 15 states. This included provisions for addressing trans-boundary effects which have been significantly reinforced in the amending Directive following E.U. accession to the Espoo Convention. Thirdly, Directive 85/337/EEC provided a unifying model for EIA legislation in a number of the transition states which hope to trade with, or eventually join, the E.U. Finally, like NEPA before it, the Directive has provided a conceptual basis for environmental assessments for foreign and overseas developments sponsored from within the E.U. (e.g. by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development).

VERTICAL SUSTAINABILITY AND AN EIA TIME DIMENSION

Sustainability also has a vertical or time-based dimension that correlates with the inter-generational equity of Brundtland s definition. This was succinctly identified in NEPA as the relationship between short-term resource use and long-term productivity. Genuinely sustainable development may be possible in forestry and agriculture, albeit with lower yields than are expected at present, and provided the system contributes significantly to generating the energy that it utilises in production. However, the shared characteristics of most projects are that they utilise nonrenewable resources and monopolise the land resource during a finite life-span. In order to address this there will be an increasing need for developers to: justify the need for the project or the products or services it produces identify its life-span assess the viability of project (and the operator) over that period genuinely account for the use of non-renewable materials recover as many resources as possible on termination demonstrate stewardship or reinstatement of the land resource provide some compensatory green gain. Most stages of this version of life-cycle analysis are inherent in the EIA structures, but the legislation will need strengthening to bring them out into the open. A call to justify the need for the project is common to most groups of objectors, but it cannot be satisfactorily delivered by the current requirement to simply provide a description of the project. This demand extends to demonstrating the financial viability of the project, and even of the parent company itself, with an indication of the source of funding for necessary maintenance during the project s operational life. Failure to address this issue has been a valid criticism of the sustainability of the E.U.-funded motorway and sewage treatment projects. Furthermore, the current legislation makes weak provision for addressing the use of resources, including the land resource. In order to deal with this effectively, it seems likely that in future all projects are going to have to address the question of decommissioning, demolition and material recycling, and the reinstatement of the land resource. Perhaps surprisingly, the current approach to EIA for mining operations may be trailblazing the route for improving the sustainability of all developments. First, mines

19

and their associated spoil and tailings deposits pose a high and long-term environmental risk. Therefore the EPA Guidelines demand that mining EISs address site reinstatement. Secondly, mining developments face a high financial investment before the predicted but somewhat uncertain mineral deposits can be accessed. Therefore new mining ventures are expected to lodge large financial bonds with the competent authorities to cover the costs of reinstatement in the event of financial failure. If we truly wish short life-span projects to become more sustainable, we should develop this line of thinking and demand: (a) a pre-application demonstration that any proposed operation is both technically and financially viable; (b) obligatory attention to the potential for eventual reuse of any buildings or hard structures that might be sanctioned; (c) failing reuse, obligatory provision for the decommissioning and dismantling of any structures (with suitable recycling of materials), and appropriate reinstatement of the site; (d) financial bonds, wherever appropriate, to offset the normal risks of business failure or any precipitous pull-out by a developer. This means that all architectural design should include provision for either reuse or easy deconstruction of the project with appropriate materials recycling. Attention to long-term detail such as dismantling would be of immediate short-term (but hopefully infrequent) benefit to emergency service co-ordinators who often face major headaches when trying to rescue people or demolish buildings affected by major accidents. Concern over the depletion of non-renewable resources for short-term gain can be mitigated by the inclusion of shadow or green gain projects which do offer longer-term benefits. Sustainable development can be facilitated by a concerted effort to identify environmental opportunities not realised in the original proposal. Ideally, every proposal should have such components. At the weakest level this could involve a commitment to re-utilise a brown field site. At the next level the proposed development would correct an existing environmental problem on the site which would not be addressed by other means. The rehabilitation of old BP service station sites in Ireland after they were acquired by Statoil, or the redevelopment of old glass works sites in St Helens, Lancashire by opencast mining of residual coal deposits are examples. At the highest level the green gain component may well be off-site, with the provision of seed capital for local enterprise or the establishment of amenity or conservation sites. Unfortunately, given the adversarial structure of our planning system and previous experience with a range of developments, the laudable concept of green gain is likely to be viewed with the greatest suspicion. Thus the proposed location of the Mullaghmore Visitor Centre in an abandoned quarry was viewed cynically as a public relations stunt to offset some of the more controversial aspects. The proposal that the Arthurstown (Kill) landfill development would also address the problem of the hazardous waste dump on the site faired little better.

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AND THE EIA REGULATIONS

Most of the ideas that I have outlined are logical extensions of provisions that already exist within the EIA Directive or the Irish planning code. However, it will take some time and consultation before these concepts could be framed in new planning provisions. In the short term, the profile of sustainable development could be easily raised by a minor rewording of the regulations making it necessary to interpret the information assembled in response to the provisions of old Annex III (especially the treatment of interactions) in terms of project sustainability. Similarly, the framing theme for

20

the Non-Technical Summary should be to emphasise the relevance of the information supplied to sustainability. A coherent category of this nature would not only underpin the retrospective faith in EIA as a tool for achieving the goal of sustainable development, but would also consolidate the Directive s existing weak references to the concept. This journal may be cited as e.g. (2011) 18(1) I.P.E.L.J. 1 [(year) (Volume number)(Issue number) I.P.E.L.J. (page number)] Irish Planning and Environmental Law Journal 1999, 1, 17-21 ___________________________________________________________________________

1. Porritt, Sustainable development: panacea, platitude or downright deception? in Energy and the environment (The 1991-2 Linacre Lectures) (Cartledge ed., O.U.P., 1993) Oxford. 2. Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment [1985] O.J. L175 /40. 3. European Communities (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations, 1989 (S.I. No. 349 of 1989). 4. Directive 97/11/EC amending Directive 85/337/EC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment [1997] O.J. L73/ 5. 5. Ward and Dubos, Only One Earth (UN Conference on Care & Maintenance of our Small Planet) (Penguin, UK, 1972). 6. WCED, Our Common Future (Report of the Brundtland Commission) (O.U.P., 1987). 7. UNCED, Agenda 21: Programme for action for sustainable development (UNDP, NY, 1992). 8. Redclift, Sustainable development: Exploring the contradictions (Roufledge, 1987). 9. IUCN/WWF/UNEP 1991. 10. Convery and Feehan, Assessing sustainability in Ireland (Environmental Institute, UCD, 1995). 11. Fifth Action Programme of policy and action in relation to the Environment and Sustainable Development. 12. Environmental Protection Agency Act 1992,s. 52(2)b as qualified by s. 52(2)e. 13. European Communities (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations, 1989 (S.I. No. 349 of 1989). 14. Draft Guidelines on the information to be contained in Environmental Impact Statements & Advice Notes on current practice in the preparation of Environmental Impact Statements (EPA, Wexford, 1995). 15. European Communities (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Amendment) Regulations, 1998 (S.I. No. 351 of 1998). 16. European Communities (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Amendment) Regulations, 1996 (S.I. No. 101 of 1996). 17. CEC, 1996 Proposal for a Council Directive on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment COM(6) 511 final, December 12, 1996. 18. Department of the Environment and Local Government, Sustainable development: A strategy for Ireland (1997). The undertaking given on behalf of the government (at 184) is stronger than that given on behalf of the Department of the Environment and Local Government(at 148). 19. The Irish, English and Welsh, and Scottish EIA regulations all follow Art. 3; those from Northern Ireland follow Annex III. Thomson Reuters (Professional) Ireland Limited.

21

6 REPORT
6.1 Introduction
Researching for this project has been a considerable undertaking with absolutely no shortage of information available about the subject on the internet. The sources of information are directly from the groups involved the Fingal County Council, Lusk-Nevittanti dump group, EPA, CPO, An Bord Pleanala and Westlaw.ie. These are the local and regional groups involved with National and European wide groups being the United Nations, UN Economic Commission for Europe and the European Union. More information can be found on these groups refer to Error! Reference source not found. section 3.

6.2 Sustainability
6.2.1 What is Sustainability? Sustainability is based on a simple principle: Everything that we need for our survival and well-being depends, either directly or indirectly, on our natural environment. Sustainability creates and maintains the conditions under which humans and nature can exist in productive harmony, that permit fulfilling the social, economic and other requirements of present and future generations. Sustainability is important to making sure that we have and will continue to have, the water, materials, and resources to protect human health and our environment. (EPA, 2012) 6.2.2 Application of Sustainability The application of sustainability in the context of locating a suitable site for a super dump becomes very intricate indeed. Then the idea of sustainability of operating this dump must be applied. In this report fortunately it will only be sustainability looked at from a legal view point. This is an undertaking in it-self. 6.2.3 Legal Enforcement of Sustainability Ok from the top.
Organisation United Nations European Union Enforcement & Guidelines Rio 20+ (Principle 10)

Article 2&6 of the Amsterdam Treaty

European Environmental Agency (have influence) / European Commission (legal power) Ireland
Figure 9 Table Enforcement of Sustainability

Environmental Protection Agency

22

6.3 Ireland
6.3.1 National Development Plan In Ireland there is a National Development Plan and a National Spatial Strategy, below is a quote from the National Development Plan. Detailing spending commitments

Waste Management Sub-Programme: Some \753 million of investment will address the problems associated with legacy landfills; support, through private investment, the development of thermal treatment plants to reduce landfill usage, and promote greater use of recycling and recovery. (Publications, 2012)
6.3.2 National Spatial Plan National Spatial Strategy
Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government Our Mission is to pursue sustainable development. In pursuing this mission our mandate is to:achieve a high quality environment with effective environmental protection; address climate change; protect and improve water resources and the quality of drinking water; ensure that our regions and communities are planned and built to respect sustainable and balanced regional development; ensure good quality housing in sustainable communities; monitor, analyse and predict Irelands weather and climate; support and enable democratic and responsive local government.
Figure 10 Gateways & Hubs (Irish Spatial Strategy, 2007)

23

6.3.3 Fingal County Council The Fingal Development Plan sets out policies and objectives for the development of the County over the Plan period. This plan guides how and where development will take place in the county over the next 6 years. This plan was adopted by Fingal County Council at a Special adjourned Meeting on 23rd March 2011. The plan comes into effect on 20th April 2011. (Council, 2012) The planners in the Fingal County Council must adhere to many different laws that are coming on-line over the next few years. These laws are coming right from the United Nations through implements like the Rio 20 + and Articles 2 & 6 from the European Union Amsterdam Treaty.

6.4 Parties Involved 6.5 Nevitt - Lusk - Anti Dump Group

Lusk is a small village on the north outskirts of Dublin city. It is older than Dublin city having roots as far back as 450 AD. It is the Nevitt-Lusk-Anti Dump Group who are opposing the site of the new dump.

6.6 An Bord Pleanala

Mission Statement To play our part as an independent national body in an impartial, efficient and open manner, to ensure that physical development and major infrastructure projects in Ireland respect the principles of sustainable development, including the protection of the environment." (An Bord Pleanala, 2007)

6.7 Fingal County Council

A good source of information on the internet has been the Fingal County Councils website where all of the minutes for meetings are posted on-line. 6.7.1 Law Agent Mary Crealey who was the Law advisor to Fingal CC until November / 09 / 2009

6.8 Environmental Protection Agency

The environmental protection agency is an independent public body established under the Environmental Protection Act 1992. other main instruments from which we derive our mandate are the Waste Management Act, 1996, and the Protection of the Environment Act, 2003. (Environmental Protection Agency, 2012).

24

Figure 11Map of Area (Google, 2012)

6.9 Costs
This is a copy of minutes that begin considering the anti-dumps claim to costs of opposing the proposed dump. The legal advice is being given by Mary Crealy. She is advising that making any payment to-wards the costs of the anti-dump group would be illegal.

Figure 12 Fingal Co Co minuets

(Fingal County Council, 2012)

25

6.10 Nevitt-Lusk Anti Dump Group Recognised

Figure 13 Awarding 30,000

(Fingal County Council, 2006)

6.11 Conclusion
The figures are out and demand that people act. Fish stocks are collapsing, warmongering is spiralling out of control, food production is coming under threat, the food supply is being genetically altered by a corporation who are currently actively putting 1000s of small farmers out of business. While promoting an untested technology on continents when there are doubts about the safety of this food and that the ice caps are literally melting before our eyes. It is staggeringly obvious what is wrong in this World to-day when educated, wealthy supposedly intelligent men stand up and support what is happening. Greed and disregard for other people is beginning to negatively affect everyone. The situation is getting so out of control now that people dont know what is right or wrong any longer. Countries that had been champions of freedom under the banner of a Christian God for generations have become alarming dangerous not only to the World in general but to their own people. Fortunately I only had to write about a local dump and not one where children grow up. 26

The latest news on the new dump location is that the proposal has been cancelled due to significant local resistance. DUBLIN LOCAL AUTHORITIES have cancelled plans for a giant landfill near Lusk in north Dublin. The proposed superdump had been in the work for 14 years, but had met with significant opposition from the local community. Fingal County Council this afternoon said that the plan had been scrapped due to the large costs which would be involved and the changed circumstances which have rendered the project no longer viable. An estimated 35 million has already been spent on the now-defunct project at Nevitt in north county Dublin. The council says that it retain ownership of the lands that were purchased for the development in 2007, close to the height of the property boom. It will not now proceed with the compulsory purchase of further land in the area. We developed this project in good faith for the past 14 years as we had a clear responsibility under the Dublin Waste Management Plan to provide the people of Dublin with the infrastructure they needed and to follow government policy, said David OConnor, the Fingal County Manager. OConnor said that the decision to proceed would involve costs of up to 45 million, which in todays market and in light of evolving national policy could not now be justified. (Journal, 2011)

27

ACRONYMS

EIS CPO EU EPA Un-Reported Judgment SPA EEA MOP SAC EC IPPC EIA IAP BAT

Environmental Impact Statement Compulsory Purchase Order European Union Environmental Protection Agency

Special Protection Areas European Environmental Agency Meeting of Parties Special Area of Conservation European Community Integration Pollution Prevention Control Environmental Impact Assessment Integrated Area Plan Best Available Techniques

Table 2 Acronyms

28

7 APPENDIX 1
7.1 Links to all the Irish Government Departments

Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht Department of Children and Youth Affairs Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources Department of Defence Department of Education and Skills Department of Environment, Community and Local Government Department of Finance Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade Department of Health Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation Department of Justice and Equality Department of Public Expenditure and Reform Department of Social Protection Department of the Taoiseach Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport (Irish Government, 2011)

29

8 APPENDIX 2
8.1 Three Pillars of the Aarhus Convention
9 Access to Information Articles 4 and 5 of the Convention concern environmental information. Members of the public are entitled to request environmental information from public bodies and these bodies are obliged to maintain this information. This includes information on the state of the environment, policies and measures taken, or on the state of human health and safety, where this can be affected by the state of the environment. Some information is exempt from release, for example where the disclosure would adversely affect international relations, national defence, public security, the course of justice, commercial confidentiality or the confidentiality of personal data. Information may also be withheld if its release could harm the environment, such as the breeding sites of rare species. The Access to Information pillar has been implemented in the EU Directive 2003/4/EC on Public Access to Environmental Information and in Ireland by the European Communities (Access to Information on the Environment) Regulations 20072011. Please see AIE for further information on this pillar, including how to make an AIE request to this Department.

10 Public Participation in Decision-Making Under the Convention, the public has a right to participate in decision-making in environmental matters. Arrangements should be made by public authorities to enable the public to comment on, for example, proposals for projects affecting the environment, or plans and programmes relating to the environment. Any subsequent comments are to be taken into consideration in the decision-making process. Information must be provided on the final decisions and the reasons for it. In the European Union, this part of the Aarhus Convention has been implemented by Directive 2003/35/EC on public participation (the Public Participation Directive). Several pieces of legislation have been used to transpose the Public Participation Directive into Irish law, including the integration of its requirements into Irish planning law and into legislation governing other environmental consents. For example, in the planning system, members of the public may submit observations on planning applications and may appeal planning decisions to An Bord Pleanla. 11 Access to Justice Article 9 of the Aarhus Convention allows the public to access to justice, i.e. the right to seek redress when environmental law is infringed and the right to access review procedures to challenge public decisions that have been made without regard to the two other pillars of the Convention.

30

Article 9(1) deals with access to justice in respect of requests for environmental information. It has been implemented in Ireland by the European Communities (Access to Information on the Environment) Regulations 2007-2011. These regulations provide for an internal review mechanism in respect of information requests and assign the role of Commissioner for Environmental Information to the Information Commissioner. Further information on the work of the Commissioner for Environmental Information (external link) All members of the public are required to have access to review procedures to challenge decisions relating to the environment, made by public bodies or private persons. These procedures must be 'fair, equitable, timely and not prohibitively expensive'. A number of pieces of legislation were introduced to assist Ireland in meeting its obligations under this pillar. One of the most significant legislative instruments, the Environment (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2011, introduced new costs rules to apply in certain cases, as well as a requirement that Judicial Notice be taken of the Convention. (Department of the Enviorment, 2012)

31

12 APPENDIX 3
12.1 European Union Institutions, Bodies and Agencys
12.1.1 Institutions and bodies

Committee of the Regions Council of the European Union Court of Justice of the European Union European Central Bank European Commission European Council European Court of Auditors European Data Protection Supervisor European Economic and Social Committee European Investment Bank European Investment Fund European Ombudsman European Parliament European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) European School of Administration Publications Office of the European Union
12.1.2 Agencies

Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER) Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC)
32

Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA) EURATOM Supply Agency (ESA) European Agency for Competitiveness and Innovation (EACI) European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (EU-OSHA) European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders (Frontex) European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop) European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) European Defence Agency (EDA) European Environment Agency (EEA) European Fisheries Control Agency (EFCA) European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (Eurofound) European GNSS Agency (GSA) European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE) European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT) European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) European Medicines Agency (EMA)
33

European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Addiction (EMCDDA) European Network and Information Security Agency (ENISA) European Police College (CEPOL) European Police Office (Europol) European Railway Agency (ERA) European Research Council Executive Agency (ERCEA) European Training Foundation (ETF) European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) European Union Institute for Security Studies (EUISS) European Union Satellite Centre (EUSC) Executive Agency for Health and Consumers (EAHC) Fusion for Energy Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) Research Executive Agency (REA) The European Union's Judicial Cooperation Unit (Eurojust) Trans-European Transport Network Executive Agency (TEN-T EA) Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union (CdT)
(Union, Direct Links to Websites, 2012)

34

13 APPENDIX 4
13.1 Co-Decision Procedure Amsterdam Treaty

Figure 14 EU Decision Making Process

(Integration, 2000)

35

14 APPENDIX 5
U.N. Member State Date of Admission

Afghanistan Albania Algeria Andorra Angola Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium

19 November 1946 14 December 1955 8 October 1962 28 July 1993 1 December 1976 11 November 1981 24 October 1945 2 March 1992 1 November 1945 14 December 1955 2 March 1992 18 September 1973 21 September 1971 17 September 1974 9 December 1966 24 October 1945 27 December 1945

36

Belize Benin Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Brazil Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Central African Republic Chad Chile China Colombia

25 September 1981 20 September 1960 21 September 1971 14 November 1945 22 May 1992 17 October 1966 24 October 1945 21 September 1984 14 December 1955 20 September 1960 18 September 1962 14 December 1955 20 September 1960 9 November 1945 16 September 1975 20 September 1960 20 September 1960 24 October 1945 24 October 1945 5 November 1945

37

Comoros Congo (Republic of the) Costa Rica Cte dIvoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea Democratic Republic of the Congo Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia

12 November 1975 20 September 1960 2 November 1945 20 September 1960 22 May 1992 24 October 1945 20 September 1960 19 January 1993 17 September 1991 20 September 1960 24 October 1945 20 September 1977 18 December 1978 24 October 1945 21 December 1945 24 October 1945 24 October 1945 12 November 1968 28 May 1993 17 September 1991

38

Ethiopia Fiji Finland France Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Greece Grenada Guatemala Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Honduras Hungary Iceland India

13 November 1945 13 October 1970 14 December 1955 24 October 1945 20 September 1960 21 September 1965 31 July 1992 18 September 1973 8 March 1957 25 October 1945 17 September 1974 21 November 1945 12 December 1958 17 September 1974 20 September 1966 24 October 1945 17 December 1945 14 December 1955 19 November 1946 30 October 1945

39

Indonesia Iran Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao Peoples Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya

28 September 1950 24 October 1945 21 December 1945 14 December 1955 11 May 1949 14 December 1955 18 September 1962 18 December 1956 14 December 1955 2 March 1992 16 December 1963 14 September 1999 14 May 1963 2 March 1992 14 December 1955 17 September 1991 24 October 1945 17 October 1966 2 November 1945 14 December 1955

40

Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Mauritania Mauritius Mexico Micronesia (Federated States of) Monaco Mongolia Montenegro [10] Morocco Mozambique Myanmar

18 September 1990 17 September 1991 24 October 1945 20 September 1960 1 December 1964 17 September 1957 21 September 1965 28 September 1960 1 December 1964 17 September 1991 27 October 1961 24 April 1968 7 November 1945 17 September 1991 28 May 1993 27 October 1961 28 June 2006 12 November 1956 16 September 1975 19 April 1948

41

Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Poland Portugal Qatar

23 April 1990 14 September 1999 14 December 1955 10 December 1945 24 October 1945 24 October 1945 20 September 1960 7 October 1960 27 November 1945 7 October 1971 30 September 1947 15 December 1994 13 November 1945 10 October 1975 24 October 1945 31 October 1945 24 October 1945 24 October 1945 14 December 1955 21 September 1971

42

Republic of Korea Republic of Moldova Romania Russian Federation [11] Rwanda Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia [13] Slovenia [14] Solomon Islands

17 September 1991 2 March 1992 14 December 1955 24 October 1945 18 September 1962 23 September 1983 18 September 1979 16 September 1980 15 December 1976 2 March 1992 16 September 1975 24 October 1945 28 September 1960 1 November 2000 21 September 1976 27 September 1961 21 September 1965 19 January 1993 22 May 1992 19 September 1978

43

Somalia South Africa South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Swaziland Switzerland Sweden Syria [15] Tajikistan Thailand The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia [16] Timor Leste Togo Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey

20 September 1960 7 November 1945 14 July 2011 14 December 1955 14 December 1955 12 November 1956 4 December 1975 24 September 1968 10 September 2002 19 November 1946 24 October 1945 2 March 1992 16 December 1946 8 April 1993 27 September 2002 20 September 1960 14 September 1999 18 September 1962 12 November 1956 24 October 1945

44

Turkmenistan Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United of Republic of Tanzania [17] United States Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Viet Nam Yemen [18] Zambia Zimbabwe

2 March 1992 5 September 2000 25 October 1962 24 October 1945 9 December 1971 24 October 1945 14 December 1961 24 October 1945 18 December 1945 2 March 1992 15 September 1981 15 November 1945 20 September 1977 30 September 1947 1 December 1964 25 August 1980

45

15 REFERENCES
Agency, E. P. (2012, 08 14). The Kyoto Protocal - EPA. Retrieved 11 11, 2012, from http://www.epa.ie: http://www.epa.ie/whatwedo/climate/thekyotoprotocol/ An Bord Pleanala. (2007, 10 2). Pleanala An Bord Pleanala. Retrieved 10 21, 2012, from www.pleanala.ie: http://www.pleanala.ie/ An Bord Pleanala. (2009, 11 04). RCH226. Dublin, GDA, Ireland. Council, F. C. (2012, 10 11). Fingal Development Plan 2011-2017. Retrieved 11 11, 2012, from http://www.fingalcoco.ie: http://www.fingalcoco.ie/Planning/FingalDevelopmentPlan2011-2017/ Department of the Enviorment, C. &. (2012, 08 23). Aarhus Convention. Retrieved 11 10, 2012, from http://www.environ.ie: http://www.environ.ie/en/Environment/AarhusConvention/ DOT. (2012, 03 01). BUNREACHT NA hIREANN. Dublin, Leinster, Ireland. Retrieved 11 09, 2012, from Constitution of Ireland. Environmental Protection Agency. (2012, 03 02). Roles and Responsablities - The Enviormental Protection Agency Ireland. Retrieved 10 20, 2012, from www.epa.ie: http://www.epa.ie/about/roles/ EPA. (2012, 02 11). Sustainability Basic Information. Retrieved 11 11, 2012, from http://www.epa.gov: http://www.epa.gov/sustainability/basicinfo.htm European Central Bank. (2012, 01 27). ECB,ECB,ESCB and the eurosystem. Retrieved 03 30, 2012, from European Central Bank: http://www.ecb.int/ecb/orga/escb/html/index.en.html European Union. (2012, 01 4). Europa Countries. Retrieved 03 30, 2012, from Europa.eu: http://europa.eu/about-eu/countries/index_en.htm Fingal County Council. (2006, 03 01). fingal county council meetings - google chrome. Retrieved 10 21, 2012, from www.fingalcoco.ie: http://www.fingalcoco.ie/minutes/meeting_fulldoc.aspx?id=95 Google Images. (2010, 01 23). The Validity of the United Nations. Retrieved 10 22, 2012, from http://altrapoint.com: http://altrapoint.com/2011/08/validity-united-nations/ Google. (2012, 02 24). Nevitt, Lusk, Dublin. Googlemaps. Retrieved 10 21, 2012, from maps.google.ie: http://maps.google.ie/maps?hl=en&sugexp=les%3B&cp=4&gs_id=f&xhr=t&q=nevin+spenc

46

e&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bpcl=35466521&biw=1241&bih=619&um=1&ie=UTF8&sa=N&tab=wl ICJ. (2012, 08 12). The Court The International Court of Justice. Retrieved 11 10, 2012, from http://www.icj-cij.org: http://www.icj-cij.org/court/index.php?p1=1 Integration, T. E. (2000, 07 23). European Union The Decision Making Process. Retrieved 11 10, 2012, from http://www.xanthi: http://www.xanthi.ilsp.gr/kemeseu/ch3/codecision.htm Irish Government. (2011, 07 03). government departments. Retrieved 10 22, 2012, from http://www.gov.ie: http://www.gov.ie/tag/departments/ Irish Spatial Strategy. (2007, 07 04). NNSMAP2.jp. Retrieved 10 21, 2012, from www.irishspatialstrategy.ie: http://www.irishspatialstrategy.ie/images/NSSMap2.JPG Nations, U. (2012, 03 28). United Nations & The Rule of Law. Retrieved 11 10, 2012, from http://www.un.org: http://www.un.org/en/ruleoflaw/index.shtml Peckinpaugh, D. J. (2012, 11 02). Peckinpaugh?!?! Really?!? Retrieved 11 03, 2012, from syntegral.blogspot.ie: http://syntegral.blogspot.ie/ Publications, G. (2012, 11 11). National Development Plan. Dublin, Leinster, Ireland. The Department of the Enviornment, Community and Local Government. (2007, 04 12). About Us The Department of the Enviornment, Community and Local Government. Retrieved 10 21, 2012, from http://www.environ.ie: http://www.environ.ie/en/AboutUs/ Union, E. (2012, 06 21). Europa Countries. Retrieved 11 09, 2012, from http://europa.eu: http://europa.eu/about-eu/countries/index_en.htm Union, E. (2012, 07 24). Europa.EU. Retrieved 11 09, 2012, from http://eur-lex.europa.eu: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2010:083:0047:0200:en:PDF

47