1. European Platform Against Wind Farms EPAW now represents 1,250 member organisations in 31 countries. EPAW’s position is that both of the below are false: “ The Commission considers that, in setting up and implementing the EU renewable energy policy, the principles of EU law have been thoroughly observed and respected”. That Article 2 of the Lisbon Treaty applies: “The Union is founded on the rule of law and respect for human rights”.

2. European Court - UNECE Aarhus Convention “ The Aarhus Convention forms an integral part of EU law ”. “Such agreements take precedence over legal acts adopted under the EC Treaty (secondary Community law). So if there was a conflict between a Directive and a Convention, such as the Aarhus Convention, all Community or Member State administrative or judicial bodies would have to apply the provision of the Convention and derogate from the secondary law provision. This precedence also has the effect of requiring Community law texts to be interpreted in accordance with such agreements”.

3. Presentation to PETI on 21 st June by UNECE “Currently eight EU Member States and the EU are on the list of non-compliant Parties, decided by the Meeting of Parties when endorsing Committee findings”.

4. Decision V/9g of Non-Compliance “EU had failed to have in place a proper regulatory framework or clear instruction to ensure the implementation by a Member State of the Convention’s requirements on public participation with respect to National Renewable Energy Action Plans” [Directive 2009/28/EC on 20% renewable energy by 2020]. “ The EU, by way of its monitoring responsibility, failed to ensure the implementation of the Convention by one of its Member States [Ireland] concerning these plans ”. A Decision of Non-Compliance in International Law and hence in Community Law

5. Directive 2009/28/EC Legally Flawed Public participation at Plan / Programme level was completely by-passed – “ Failed to ensure: Arrangements were transparent and fair Necessary information provided to the public Reasonable timeframes for informing the public and for the public to prepare and participate effectively Effective public participation ‘ when all options are open ’ That in the decision due account is taken of the outcome of the public participation”

6. UNECE Second Progress review due in Oct 2016 First progress review [Oct 2015]. “The Committee expresses its concern that the activities described in the Party concerned’s report are not sufficient to address any of the recommendations […] nor does the report provide any plan of action, list of proposed activities or explanation as to how the Party concerned proposes to fully implement those recommendations...” “The Committee therefore finds that the Party concerned has not yet fulfilled the requirements of decision V/9g nor has taken any significant steps in that direction.”

7. Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Aarhus Convention requires provision of ‘necessary information’. EU Law: Provision of more detailed SEA (Directive 2001/42/EC)

8. Ireland to reap a ‘whirlwind of legal cases’ “Jurisprudence has broad-ranging implications for renewable energy across the EU” “Overall, what the Swords [UNECE] decision demonstrates (particularly when considered in the broader context of EU law) is the lack of stability underlying Ireland's overall wind policy up until 2020, the lack of analysis supporting the decision to promote onshore wind and the risk inherent in investing in such a legally unstable market.” No knowledge exists of costs, benefits, impacts, mitigation measures, reasonable alternatives, etc., etc.

9. EU – “We don’t have to supply any facts or figures” Section 5.3 of NREAP template left blank by 19 of the 27 Member States, others provided little or no information. EU Energy Commissioner – “ to avoid an excessive administrative burden on the Member States ”

10. Planning is a farce – E.g. Assessment of Project’s alleged benefit; the CO 2 savings “The [observers’] arguments were persuasive. The extent to which the proposed development would reduce greenhouse gas emissions depends on factors that cannot be conclusively determined in the course of this application… Its impact on climate change would be positive, but it may not be significant. The proposed development is not justified for planning purposes by a demonstration that it would in itself lead to a quantifiable reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. It is justified by its compliance with general public policies that have been made in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Whether those policies are likely to be effective is not a matter for the board to review in the course of this planning application.”

11. €1,000 billion spent on turbines and PV solar No knowledge of actual greenhouse gas savings or the environmental damage cost of carbon dioxide exists. Jean Francois Brakeland, Head of Unit A2, DG Environment responding to this question at Dec 2012 UNECE Compliance Committee meeting: “If instead of a 110 m high turbine, you had a 110 m high metal statute of Mickey Mouse, you wouldn’t be looking for the carbon balance on that, so why are you looking for it for the turbine”

12. Growing chorus of discontent around EU EU  Democratic Deficit; Dysfunctional

13. Ireland is renown for its unique heritage The Environment of Ireland belongs to its people  Robust procedural rights apply. How dare you implement such a dysfunctional plan to plaster this unique and beautiful landscape with thousands of giant turbines, in a manner, which is so fundamentally illegal and such an abuse of our rights.