COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 22.11.1995 
COM(95) 509 final 
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION 
TO THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 
THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE 
AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 
COHESION POLICY AND THE ENVIRONMENT 

I. Context: Cohesion Policy and the horizontal character of the environmental dimension 
The Treaty on European Union provides that both the environmental and the Cohesion 
dimension should be taken into account when formulating and implementing all policies and 
furthermore that environmental policy should take account of the diversity of situations in the 
various regions of the Community. 
The Community Programme on the Environment - Towards Sustainability - (1992) further 
articulates and specifies a strategy for achieving.sustainability and identifies integration - both in 
economic and physical terms - as key to this goal. However, the broad goals of this Community 
Programme have to be given operational meaning and have to relate adequately to the various 
processes of both policy formulation and implementation. This is especially true for the 
Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund which are the principal instruments of Community 
Cohesion policy. 
The revised Structural Funds Regulations, introduced in 1993, have provided a basis for 
integration of the environmental dimension within the Funds' programming process and resulted 
in better structured programmes with environmental objectives and safeguards. 
The establishment of the Cohesion Fund has added further impetus to the environmental 
dimension of the Community's Cohesion Policy. This Fund constitutes for the Member States 
concerned the most important instrument to address their needs, particularly in the field of 
protection and management of water resources, as well as the collection, treatment and recycling 
of waste. 
Notwithstanding the fact that the primary responsibility for implementing environmental and 
cohesion policy rests with the Member States, the Commission has for several years been 
receiving complaints concerning infringements of environmental legislation in the implementation 
of projects assisted by Community funds. The Commission views this situation seriously in that it 
damages public perception of Community Activity. 
The European Parliament has in its resolution no. A4-0064/95 of 5 April 1995 and subsequently 
in the course of the preparations for the '96 budget expressed concern about the need to make 
the execution of the budget more sensitive to environmental issues The Commission takes this 
concern seriously and regards this Communication as a response as far as Cohesion Policy is 
concerned. 
The continuing challenge is to ensure that the implementation of these programmes is consistent 
with sustainable development and Community environmental rules. 
This Communication examines the developing relationship between Cohesion and Environmental 
Policies and illustrates options for achieving greater synergy between them during the 
implementation of Structural Funds programmes and Cohesion Fund projects. 
II. Regional Development and the Environment 
In the past, environmental protection and economic development had often been perceived as 
conflicting objectives. However, there is now an increasing awareness that environment and 
regional development are of complementary character. 
A good example in this context is the importance of the Cohesion Fund and the Structural Funds 
for the funding of transport infrastructures as part of the Transeuropean Networks (TEN). On 
the one hand, transport investment is a significant determinant of economic activity within the 
region or in cooperation with other regions. On the other hand, transport can also affect a 
region's environmental performance and the sustainability of its development. To minimise 
environmental damage such as air pollution and negative impact on protected areas from likely 
increases in road traffic (freight and passenger transport), there is a need to address the issue of 
balance between different modes of transport. Investment in rail infrastructure and public 
transport is a central key to this problem. In addition, appropriate examination of alternatives 
and appropriate mitigation measures should be included in transport corridor assessments and/or 
within individual transport schemes. 
I The fact that the environment itself is a major factor for regional development is often 
underestimated. As the regions' situations vary considerably, the application of local 
development and employment initiatives gains increased importance in this context. 
Natural resources (water, air, soils, etc.) are of major environmental and socio-economic 
importance in that they are the basic support elements for man and ecosystems. The quality of 
the environment determines regional attractiveness and as such is a location factor for 
investment. Over-exploitation as well as degradation of the natural resource base can have 
severe consequences not just for the environment but for economic activity. For example, water 
resources management is now a major pre-occupation within the Community. Whether it is 
questions of flooding, pollution or over-exploitation of water supplies, it is clear that greater 
dibits have to be made to improve the management of the Community's freshwater resources if 
they are to continue as a basis for economic activity. 
The environment is an important area of new employment. Besides the jobs generated by the 
construction and maintenance of environmentally-friendly infrastructures mentioned above, more 
and more attention is given to the employment potential offered by the so-called eco-business, 
where SMEs play an important role. Eco-business produce goods and services for measuring, 
preventing, limiting or correcting damage to water, air and soil and include activities related to 
waste and noise reduction and treatment. Such services include eco-auditing and advice to 
mainstream industries. The development of such environmental industries, mostly technology, 
application and innovation oriented (i.e. production of goods linked to pollution control, 
telematics applications for better integrated approaches to local and regional environmental 
management for prevention of natural and man-made risks and for natural resource management, 
energy saving technologies or renewable energy), offers a promising potential for lasting 
employment. 
Moreover environmental services including development and maintenance of the necessary 
infrastructure (i.e. waste management, pollution control, water management, maintenance of 
natural areas, even activities beyond the environment sector, which also contribute substantially 
to a higher quality of life for citizens, such as conservation of national heritage, urban renewel, 
etc.) are very labour intensive and thus contribute significantly to employment. The 
Commission's Communication on a "European Strategy for encouraging Local Development and 
Employment Initiatives" of June 1995, gives many examples of job creation potentialities in the 
environment sector. 
The Communication of the Commission on the future of rural life already emphasised in 1988 
the importance of a reinforced protection of the environment. The increased demand for 
"natural" agricultural products or "green" tourism opens new regional perspectives in rural areas. 
Furthermore, other economic activities relying on a "clean" environment (e.g. technological 
research) can contribute considerably to the diversification of revenues and thus to the 
maintenance of the rural population. 
Environmental training and an adequate human resources policy, closely linked to the 
employment effect of the environment, are of twofold importance for sustainable regional 
development: 
On the one hand, they can help the labour force to adapt to changed skill demands and at the 
same time assist the regions' conversion towards more environmentally sustainable industries and 
sectors On the other hand, they increase public awareness of environmental protection issues 
and thus raise public support for sustainable development. Innovative telematics platforms based 
on advanced information and telecommunications technologies offer new possibilities for public 
environmental information services and hence also contribute to an increased public awareness 
on environement issues. 
It is estimated that 80% of the people currently employed in eco-business are relatively low-
skilled. However, 20% of the workforce involved in the management and technical activities are 
highly skilled and extensively trained. With changing technology, and as pollution control and 
energy efficiency become an integral part of productive processes, there will be a need for proper 
technical specialists, managers, engineers, and those involved in urban planning, landscaping, 
managing nature reserves, forests, etc. 
The positive effect of Cohesion Policy on the environment can be seen as a twofold one: 
On the one hand the financial transfer effect of Cohesion policy puts administrations, as well as 
enterprises of the least favoured regions in a better situation to cope with environmental 
problems (by strengthening their investment capacity ), and thus gives opportunities to improve 
environmental standards and quality. 
On the other hand direct financial assistance to environmental projects as well as the indirect 
positive environmental effect of productive investment help to improve the environmental 
quality. The following section describes these effects in detail. 
III. Cohesion policy as an opportunity to operationalise "sustainable development" 
As Cohesion policy represents a cross-section of different policies within a spatial dimension, it 
can be used as a tool to make various Community policies more sensitive to environmental 
issues. The Structural Funds contribute significantly to support environmental investments both 
directly and indirectly. In addition, the creation of the Cohesion Fund, aimed directly at assisting 
environmental (and transport) projects, underlines the increased importance of the environment 
within Cohesion policy. 
During the first round of Structural Funds programming (1989-1993) the European Parliament, 
but also the Court of Auditors and environmental non-governmental organisations expressed 
criticism on the lack of systematic environmental appraisal procedures in the programming, as 
well as on cotinancing of projects allegedly damaging the environment. As a result, the 
Commission overhauled the Structural Funds Regulations taking account of the broader issue of 
sustainable development and the necessity to integrate the environmental dimension into all 
stages of programme preparation and implementation. 
Four aspects of the integration of environmental issues into Cohesion policy illustrate practical 
ways in which sustainable development is being supported and promoted. 
/. Improvement of the environment by direct investment in environmental projects (cf. table 
at annex) 
The Cohesion Fund and the Structural Funds directly support environmental infrastructure 
within the eligible Member States or regions. Measures include the protection and 
management of water resources, the collection, treatment and recycling of waste as well as 
actions to clean up coastal areas and river basins Activities also comprise the treatment 
and rehabilitation of industrial sites (particularly in Objective 2 areas) as well as the 
upgrading of deprived urban areas. Moreover, various measures under the FIFG contribute to 
the reduction of negative effects of the fisheries sectors on the environment in general and on 
fisheries resources in particular. All these investments are mainly oriented towards curative 
actions. 
Between 1989 and 1993 circa 7% (2.751 billion ECU) of the Structural Funds budget in 
Objectives 1, 2 and 5b areas was spent on direct environmental measures. 
The programme documents adopted for the Objective 1 areas between 1994 and 1999 anticipate 
about 8,9% (8.328 billion ECU) of the total Structural Funds budget in these areas 
(93.810 billion ECU ( * ) ) explicitly for environmental investment. 
In the Objective 2 programmes adopted for the period 1994-1996 approximately 5,7% (397 
million ECU) of the budget available in the eligible areas (6.977 billion ECU(*)) is proposed for 
directly environmental measures. 
For Objective 5b areas, about 11,7% (more than 720 million ECU) of the total Structural Fund 
budget foreseen in the programmes for the period 1994-99 will be devoted to the protection and 
the promotion of the environment. For example, the measures envisage the setting up of 
educational facilities and structures relating to the environment (development of discovery trails, 
creation of education and welcome centres) or measures aimed at the protection of aquatic 
biotopes (plan for the re-introduction of the salmon, ecological engineering works for the 
regeneration of degraded sites). 
In addition, Community initiatives such as LEADER and SME, emphasise especially innovative 
measures. 
The Cohesion Fund will disburse about 16 billion ECU between 1993 and 1999. During the first 
two years of its operation (93 and 94) the balance between environment and transport projects 
was about 45/55%. The Commission considers the environment share should be improved and 
that a 50/50 division as an allocation target must be aimed at (see section IV. 1.). 
Investment in projects with a positive impact on the environment 
Besides the financial aid directly addressed towards the environment, support of productive 
investment can also have significant indirect positive effects on the environment These measures 
by their distinct preventive nature are particularly valuable in terms of sustainability and are 
often ignored in current analyses of the the impact of the Funds. 
The Structural Funds' incentives for the promotion of environmentally friendly products and 
technology, especially in SMEs, illustrate an approach to economic development which is 
"sustainable". The same is true for the promotion of renewable energy and the use of energy 
and water-saving technologies. Also, the support to appropriate information infrastructure 
networks can support activities such as teletraining and telecounselling for improving 
environmental management of SMEs. 
(A ) IW4 prices 
The aid to investment in public transport via the Cohesion Fund and the Structural Funds 
strengthens the basis for indigenous regional development and at the same time improves the 
competitive situation of public transport against other less environmentally friendly transport 
systems. 
The promotion of productive activities relying directly on a high quality of environment such as 
services relating to R&D, health and "green tourism", as well as organic farming and 
nature conservation by the Structural Funds gives rural areas especially the opportunity to 
capitalise on their natural assets while at the same time protecting them. 
The pursuit of an environmentally oriented human resources policy by the Structural Funds 
(for example environmental training courses) increases public and business awareness of 
environmental issues while at the same time improving the quality of workers' skills and hence 
their capacity to adapt to changed labour demands. 
Finally, all technical rules for the protection offish resources and of the marine ecosystem in 
general under the Common Fisheries Policy as well as measures for the adjustment of 
agricultural structures under Objective 5a and the accompanying measures for the CAP 
(i.e the agri-environmental measures) can contribute in effect to the protection of the 
environment. 
Intensified environmental monitoring and evaluation 
A major impact of the revised Structural Funds regulations is the increased consideration of 
environmental aspects on all levels of programming and implementation of Cohesion policy. The 
intensification of ex-ante and ex-post evaluation with special regard to environmental impact is 
central in this new approach. The consideration of environmental objectives in the programming 
documents (i.e. within the Community support frameworks and Single Programming documents) 
is now compulsory. Moreover the definition of certain environmental impact indicators has been 
improved. Environmental authorities have to be involved in the development and monitoring of 
the programmes as required by the revised regulations. 
Although important progress has been made in this field for the new programming period, there 
remains scope for the improvement of environmental assessment and monitoring at the 
programme level. Proposals for action in this area are set out below in section IV 
4. Environmental concerns within project selection and implementation 
Improvement in terms of the environmental quality of projects will greatly contribute to 
sustainability and Cohesion. Currently, for example, the Council Directive 85/337/EEC on 
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), as well as the "Habitat" and "Bird" Directives, have to 
be complied with. In regard to the former, experience has demonstrated the often poor quality of 
the environmental assessments and the lack of public transparency. The current revision of the 
ElA-Directive intends to tackle these problems. Moreover, there is a need to develop project 
eligibility and selection criteria which go beyond the basic environmental compliance dimension 
to reflect both economic and environmental sustainability. 
In line with the principle of subsidiarity both monitoring and evaluation, as well as project 
selection and implementation, are the remit of the monitoring committees. The monitoring 
committees have a central role to play as the forum for developing and improving environmental 
impact assessment and selection criteria to promote sustainable development. However, these 
committees do not always have the necessary means and capacity to influence the implementing 
authorities (national and regional) towards an increased consideration of environmental concerns 
within project selection. This needs to be addressed in both short term and long term. 
IV. Options for the future 
In keeping with the principle of subsidiarity (in cohesion policy as well as in environmental 
policy) the success of a further integration of cohesion policy and the environment will to a great 
extent depend on the cooperation of the Member States and, where appropriate, the regions 
concerned. 
Within the existing legal framework of the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund, the 
Commission has an important role to play in the encouragement, screening, and coordination of 
national practices which will be managed in a climate of partnership rather than obligation. 
Practical application of this would comprise the following set of options: 
1. The Cohesion Fund illustrates the close link between Environmental Policy, Transeuropean 
Networks and Cohesion Policy. The Cohesion Fund Regulation provides that a suitable balance 
shall be struck between transport infrastructure and environmental projects. 
The Commission considers that for the future a 50/50 distribution between transport and 
environment should be an allocation target which must be aimed at. 
As regards the implementation of this target, the Commission will, in partnership with the 
Member States concerned, adopt a flexible approach particularly as regards timing, the 
characteristics of individual projects and development needs. According to the different needs of 
the Cohesion countries, e. g. in relation to water management, water treatment and waste 
disposal, the Commission will ensure, in partnership with the Member States concerned, the 
highest environmental quality of Cohesion Fund projects. Moreover, the fact that many transport 
projects, for example investment in public transport, can be the answer to an environmental 
problem needs to be taken into account. The Commission will ensure that projects funded by the 
Cohesion Fund will comply with environmental legislation and standards. 
Moreover the Commission will analyse further the possibilities for better coordination between 
the Cohesion Fund and the Structural Funds with regard to environmental monitoring and 
assessment (e.g. common objectives, common reporting system) and the use of objective 
eligibility criteria. 
i On the programming level those programmes already approved or shortly to be approved 
contain a substantial share of measures contributing directly or indirectly to the protection and 
improvement of the environment. 
However, the Commission will intensify work towards a better understanding of the nature and 
impact of those measures which have (or could have) indirect effects on the environment as 
described above (III.2.). Because of their distinct preventive character these actions are most 
important to achieve sustainable development. The preventive approach also includes a 
supportive human resources policy to respond to changed labour market demands and increased 
environmental requirements. A critical review of all programming documents will be undertaken 
aimed at the identification of those project types of preventive character that should be 
emphasised in the future. 
The forthcoming review of programmes (interim assessment of 6-year programmes, new 
Objective-2-programmes for 1997-1999) as well as the anticipated extension of the INTERREG 
Community Initiative will be used as an opportunity to strengthen further the (preventive) 
environmental dimension of the Structural Funds. Experience from LIFE could be usefully 
applied also in this context. 
The Commission will consider further options for environmental pilot projects available under 
Art 10 of the ERDF regulation, Art.6 of the ESF regulation, Art.8 of the EAGGF regulation 
and Art.4 of the FIFG regulation to add impetus to sustainable development. These could 
include for example projects assisting exchange of best practice on sustainable development as 
well as regional or local development projects that create environmentally "sustainable" jobs. In 
this respect, the European Observatory for Rural Innovation and Development set up within the 
framework of the LEADER II Initiative, shall contribute to identifying and to transferring 
successful innovative actions. 
To encourage environmentally sustainable investment, the Commission plans to give more effect 
to the opportunity for a preferential environmental differentiation of the Community's rate of 
assistance under the Structural Funds (Art. 13 Framework Regulation). 
The Commission stresses the importance of including systematically the environmental 
dimension in programme monitoring and evaluation (ex-ante/ex-post),. 
As the implementation of the programmes is under the competence of the Member States, it is 
important to note that the necessary improvement of monitoring and evaluation of environmental 
impacts can only be achieved in close cooperation with them and where appropriate the regions 
concerned. 
The Commission will therefore intensify discussions with the Member States and where 
appropriate regions concerned towards a further improvement of environmental objectives and 
impact indicators. A critical analysis of the nature and the quality of environmental objectives 
and impact indicators contained in the existing programming documents could be a starting point 
for further dicussions and research on broader, quantifiable sustainability indicators to improve 
environmental evaluation. The Commission itself will increase its efforts within the framework of 
"Technical Assistance" towards the further development and improvement of environmental 
evaluation methods and assessment indicators. 
The role attributed to the designated environmental authorities as foreseen in the new 
programming documents is an important issue in this context. The Regulations require that the 
designated competent environmental authorities be involved in the definition and implementation 
of the programming documents. To increase the effectiveness of their input into programming 
and implementation, the Commission will seek in partnership with the Member States and 
regions concerned to develop a clearer role for them in the implementation of programmes. 
In addition the Commission will encourage contacts and increased networking of environmental 
authorities both within Member States and between the Member States and the regions giving 
them the opportunity to exchange experience and clarify their role within monitoring and 
evaluation. Finally, more attention should be given to capacity building within the 
administrations for environmental programme management and monitoring. Technical assistance 
could provide help in this regard also. 
While the operation of the Cohesion Fund is project-based and hence involves the Commission 
directly in the decision-making-process, the programme approach of the Structural Funds 
considerably diminishes the involvement of the Commission within project selection. 
In general the Commission insists on good quality assesment of the environmental consequences 
of proposed actions and in this regard, better application of the Environmental Impact 
Assessment Directive 85/337EEC as well as of other environmental rules such as the "Habitat" 
and "Bird" directives. The monitoring committees should ensure that the procedures for the 
selection of projects give more effect to existing provisions preventing the Community from co-
financing projects damaging to the environment. 
However, the Commission stresses the necessity of further development of project eligibility and 
selection criteria which not only reflect the need of compliance with environmental rules but also 
reflect economic, social and environmental sustainability (i.e. in the field of waste minimisation, 
energy saving). Technical assistance could be used to promote exchange of experiences and to 
develop guidelines on best practice in this area. The Commission will reinforce its negotiations in 
this context with the Member States and where appropriate regions, in particular in the 
Monitoring Committees. 
In future the Commission will seek to play a more active role in the prevention of 
infringements of environmental rules within Structural Funds' and Cohesion Fund operations. 
A prompt and critical analysis of the signals and warnings expressed through updated state-of-
the-environment reports in the regions concerned as well as evaluations made by environmental 
authorities and environmental organisations will be important in this context. If, nevertheless an 
infringement occurs, the Commission will make use of strict sanctions as envisaged in the 
provisions in force, including the reimbursement of Community Funds. 
11 
5. As anticipated in the revised Structural Funds regulations the role of the competent 
environmental authorities has been increased considerably since 1993. To increase transparency 
the Commission supports the necessity of dialogue, as appropriate and respecting the provisions 
of Article 4.1 of the framework Regulation with various parties most concerned to a project, 
including representative non-governmental environmental organisations in partnership with 
the Member States. In addition, the responsible authorities in the Member States will be 
encouraged to improve the publicity of the programming documents and their implementation. 
6. The European Parliament adopted in its first reading of the draft budget for 1996 the 
introduction of additional measures to make its execution more sensitive to environmental issues. 
The Commission acknowledges the aim underlying this proposal to increase the environmental 
dimension of budgetary execution. This Communication underlines the importance the 
Commission attributes to the environmental aspects of Cohesion Policy. 
The Communication illustrates that the revision of the Structural Funds Regulations as well as 
the creation of the Cohesion Fund have already led to a clear strenghtening of environmental 
aspects in the programming and implementation of Cohesion Policy. Intensified efforts on 
environmental evaluation are central to this approach, in which the Member States play an 
important role. 
Within the existing legal framework, the Commission will use the various options described in 
this Communication to further improve the environmental dimension, as requested by the 
European Parliament. These options are the furthest possible under the Structural Funds 
Regulations in their present form. However, new ideas based on further experience could 
influence the general revision of the Regulations relating to the Structural Funds due for 1999. 
12 
Annex 
Contribution of Cohesion Policy to direct environmental measures 
in the respective programming periods 
The following table contains figures on environmental expenditure of the Cohesion instruments 
programmed or realised in the respective programming periods. 
Figures are only available for Cohesion Fund and Structural Fund expenditure under Objectives 1, 2 
and 5b. 
Under Objective 3, environmental actions are included in employment aid to local authorities. These 
actions generally deal with environmental enhancement and clean-up activities, e.g. cleaning up of 
industrial sites, river and beach cleaning, coastal protection, nature conservation and enhancement, ... 
Under Objective 4, vocational and job-market training, counselling and guidance of workers will take 
place on the basis of industrial change and changes in production systems. One of the main changes 
in the introduction and adjustment to environmentally sound and sustainable ways of production. 
Under Objective 5(a), the EAGGF (Guidance Section) may, in particular, support investments in 
agricultural holdings aimed at the protection and improvement of the environment. It may also 
contribute to the financing of investments in the agricultural products processing industry whxh help 
facilitate the adoption of new technologies centred on the protection of the environment. In this 
regard, the selection criteria established by the Commission decision of 22 March 1994 give priority, 
amongst others, to investments linked to the protection of the environment, to the prevention of 
pollution and the elimination of waste, including that related to the products of biological agriculture. 
Under Objective 5(a), the FIFG may participate in material investments in the fields of aquaculture, 
the protection and development of fisheries resources in coastal maritime regions, facilities at fishing 
ports and the processing and marketing of fishery and aquaculture products; certain of these 
investments are intended to reduce harm to the environment. 
13 
Contribution of Cohesion Policy to direct environmental measures in the respective programming periods (in MECU 1994 prices) 
Belgique Danmark Deutschland Ellada Espana France Ireland Italia Luxembourg Nederland Portugal United 
Kingdom EUR 12 
STRUCTURAL 
FUNDS Total 
Obj. 1 (94-99) Total 
Environment 
Obj. 2 (94-96) Total 
Emironment 
Obj. 5b (94-99)Total 
Environment 730 
92 
160 
8 
77 
7 -
-
56 
p.m* 
54 
p.m* 13640 
1106 
733 
52 
1227 
207 13980 
624 
-
-
-
-26300 
3034 
1130 
40 
664 
67 2190 
323 
1765 
103 
2238 
245 5620 
74 
-
-
-
-14860 
1867 
684 
48 
901 
94 -
-
7 
2 
6 
0.5 150 
5 
300 
5 
150 
36 13980 
1056 
-
-
-
-2360 
146 
2142 
138 
817 
64 93810 
8328 
6977 
397 
6134 
720,5 100.0 % 
8.9 % 
100.0 % 
5.7 % 
100.0 % 
11.7% 
COHESION EUR 4 
FUND 
1993 Total 
Emironment 
1994 Total 
Emironment 280 
175 
332 
198 858 
252 
1018 
519 142 
56 
168 
72 284 
123 
334 
134 1565** 
606 
1853 
923 100.0 % 
38.7 % 
100.0 % 
49.8 % 
* exact figures cannot be given, as environemental measures are to a large extent integrated within other categories of expenditure 
-F 

ISSN 0254-1475 
COM(95) 509 final 
DOCUMENTS 
EN 13 14 
Catalogue number : CB-CO-95-561-EN-C 
ISBN 92-77-95308-X 
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities 
L-2985 Luxembourg