For MP Joëlle Welfring, the environment is not a priority issue for the government. Archive photo: Paperjam

For MP Joëlle Welfring, the environment is not a priority issue for the government. Archive photo: Paperjam

MPs on Wednesday were due to discuss in committee a motion tabled by Joëlle Welfring (déi Gréng) concerning the inclusion of a right to a “safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment” in the European Convention on Human Rights. The discussion has been withdrawn from the agenda, much to her chagrin.

MPs on the environment and foreign affairs committees on 7 May were due to discuss a motion tabled by déi Gréng MP concerning the possible inclusion of a right to a “safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment” in the European Convention on Human Rights. Yesterday morning, she was informed that this discussion had been withdrawn from the agenda without explanation. Welfring contacted the chairmen of the two committees,  (CSV) and (DP) respectively, but was unable to obtain an explanation for the removal from the agenda.

Welfring had tabled the motion to remind the government--which holds the rotating chairmanship of the Council of Europe’s committee of ministers until 14 May--of its commitments to continue the undertakings made at the start of its chairmanship to pursue the commitments made at the fourth summit of heads of state in Reykjavik in May 2023. These commitments focused in particular on environmental protection and “countering the impact of the triple global crisis, caused by pollution, climate change and biodiversity loss, on human rights, democracy and the rule of law.” Annex V of the final declaration includes a commitment to strengthen the Council of Europe’s existing environment-related activities and the recognition as a human right of a right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment.

A missed opportunity for the government

This is a recognition that would have had concrete consequences. “At present, the text of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) does not mention the right to a healthy environment. This forces the European Court of Human Rights to resort to legal subterfuge when dealing with such a case.” In fact, the ECHR has built up a body of case law to defend these rights. It is an effective system, but a fragile one, because it is likely to evolve in the opposite direction. “Including the right to a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment in an additional protocol to the ECHR would be a way of strengthening environmental protection,” she believes. “This is all the more important given that in a context where multilateralism is weakening and faced with a European Commission that is not acting in favour of a stronger right to environmental protection, it is important to take strong action.”

Welfring had hoped that the government would take this strong action to the Council of Europe. This, she now doubts. Luxembourg will hand over to Malta on 14 May following the annual session of the committees of ministers, which begins on 13 May in Luxembourg. In her view, the “unexpected” cancellation of the meeting on 7 May proves that this issue is not a priority for the government and majority parties. “Luxembourg has lost an opportunity to carry weight on the international stage.”

This article was originally published in .