Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the 'Communication from the Commission on "Implementing Community Environmental Law"` (97/C 244/09)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

having regard to the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament: implementing Community environmental law (COM(96) 500 final);

having regard to its decision on 8 March 1996, under the fourth paragraph of Article 198c of the Treaty establishing the European Community, to deliver an opinion on this matter and to direct Commission 5 - Land Use Planning, Environment and Energy - to draw up that opinion;

having regard to the draft opinion (CdR 437/96 rev.) adopted by Commission 5 on 3 April 1997 (rapporteur: Mr Jonson),

adopted the following opinion at its 18th plenary session on 11 and 12 June 1997 (meeting of 12 June).

INTRODUCTION

The Communication gives an account of the implementation, practical application and enforcement of Community environmental laws. It deals with the procedure for the whole 'regulatory chain` (legislation, transposition, practical application, enforcement and monitoring). The Commission feels weaknesses in the current state of implementation of Community environmental law exist in most parts of the Community, and that action is therefore needed in order to improve the situation.

The bulk of Community legislation is adopted in the form of directives which have to be transposed into national law. This gives Member States the freedom to enact transposing legislation in the form most appropriate to national conditions. This option, in the Commission's view, hinders proper, full implementation.

The purpose of the Communication is to find ways of reinforcing the obligations which different actors in the regulatory chain (the Commission, Member States, regional and local authorities, industry, citizens and non-governmental organizations) bear in the 'shared responsibility` for application of Community environmental law.

GENERAL COMMENTS

1. The Committee of the Regions welcomes the Commission's initiative to boost Community environmental policy.

The Committee takes a positive view of the Union's objective of achieving sustainable development within the framework of the IGC discussions. Both the IGC document and the fifth Environmental Action Programme emphasize the importance of mainstreaming environmental issues in the framing and implementation of all Community policies.

The Committee suggests that the precautionary principle, the 'polluter pays` principle, and the principles of producer responsibility and substitution should underpin all Community policies. The EU and its various Member States are signatories to the Rio document, and as such have agreed to build on these principles and a whole range of other important objectives under Agenda 21 and the Rio Declaration, in order to achieve a sustainable society.

The Committee of the Regions feels that the Communication should shed more light on these basic principles. The EU should, inter alia, harness these basic principles - the Community's environmental legislation - to foster greater environmental awareness in industry, the population at large, and in voluntary organizations within the EU.

2. The Commission has at its disposal - as do the Member States - various ways of improving compliance with EU environmental legislation. The most important of these are economic instruments and tougher legislation, backed by education, information and active commitment.

One solution is to use environmental legislation to improve environmental conditions within the Union, based on authoritative measures, e.g. monitoring. Additional instruments are provided under the environmental management systems, particularly the EU EMAS and ISO 14000 (14001) regulations. The environmental management systems provide, inter alia, for environmental reviews, which partly involves monitoring the extent to which environmental legislation is complied with. The Committee of the Regions believes that the systems should be better coordinated with environmental legislation and that they should be exploited further. Environmental management systems should also be tried out in appropriate public sector areas, at local, regional and national level.

The Committee of the Regions would call on the Commission to assess how far the various methods can be harnessed in connection with regulations which are experiencing compliance problems.

3. The Committee of the Regions recommends that sanctions be introduced in order to ensure better compliance with Community environmental legislation, should the above methods fail to produce the desired effect.

4. A review of the level of economic sanctions applied in the various Member States and their policies on such sanctions should be carried out. It must not, in principle, be 'cheaper` to contravene Community environmental legislation in one Member State than in another.

5. The Committee of the Regions would suggest that the Communication pay more attention to the importance of local and regional level involvement in implementing Community environmental legislation. By linking issues such as compliance with Community environmental legislation with work on local Agenda 21, we can boost the 'bottom-up perspective` and encourage citizen participation in the Community.

6. The Committee of the Regions recommends closer ties between Community environmental legislation and economic instruments.

7. The Committee of the Regions believes that any EU Member States who wish to push on and introduce stricter environmental legislation should be allowed to do so, with the proviso that the overall aim must be to promote good practice in all Member States. Environmental guarantees should therefore be given a higher profile. If the fifth Environmental Action Programme is to achieve its objectives for sustainable development, then environmental issues must be placed on a par with the free movement of goods, etc.

In public procurement, the contracting authorities must be able to take account of a tender's environmental implications. The Commission should make clear the options available for this, and remove any obstacles to including environmental factors in the decision-making process, provided that this does not distort the market. The Commission should also redouble its efforts on eco-labelling. Long-distance road haulage is a controversial area.

8. The Committee of the Regions wishes to refrain from making detailed comments on issues which vary greatly from country to country, and which do not affect the regional and local level.

9. The Committee of the Regions feels that there would be greater willingness and ability to comply with Community environmental legislation if the Commission were to pay more attention to physical geography considerations when framing directives (e.g. on bathing water and waste disposal).

10. As for the legislative procedure proper, the Committee of the Regions calls on the Commission to pay greater attention to the Member States' individual approaches to regulation, decentralization and regional and municipal competence, etc.

A minimum requirement for the legislative procedure is that the layman should be able to understand the implications of Community environmental legislation. Current regulations are, to some extent, lacking in structure, and often include a mix of environmental policy objectives and far-reaching detailed regulation in one and the same directive.

11. The Committee of the Regions believes that the implementation and application of Community environmental legislation should be based on the subsidiarity principle, among other things because environmental regulations have a considerable impact on regions and municipalities.

12. Administrative responsibility for the application of EU environmental legislation often falls to the Member State regions and municipalities. The Committee of the Regions therefore feels that the Commission should bear in mind the administrative and economic consequences of EU environmental initiatives.

13. The Committee of the Regions would once again express its wish to be consulted on environmental issues as a matter of course, in accordance with the COR opinion on the Treaty on European Union.

SPECIFIC COMMENTS

Part II - New areas for action

Member State inspection tasks

14. The Committee of the Regions shares the Commission's view that there is a need to monitor the inspection arrangements for compliance with Community environmental legislation. Inadequate monitoring could give some countries a competitive advantage over those which have made monitoring a priority. When defining the minimum monitoring criteria for inspections in the respective countries, the Committee of the Regions believes that consideration should be given to how far those countries comply with legislation. Countries which implement new directives and comply with environmental regulations shall be given the freedom, for instance, to develop their own, effective inspection arrangements as an alternative to the Commission's own arrangements, provided that the Commission, as well as the other Member States, can ascertain that such supervision is adequate.

The Committee of the Regions would strongly emphasize that it is the quality of the monitoring arrangements which is important, rather than organization or scope. Individual countries should be able to have a say in how the monitoring arrangements should be organized and implemented in detail.

15. The Committee of the Regions feels that the representatives of the regions and local authorities should be given more opportunity to take part in framing guidelines, new directives, etc. The Commission should also make a concerted effort to use information technology to provide readily-accessible information on Community environmental legislation for the regions, local authorities and the public at large. The information should, of course, be available in all official EU languages.

Member State environmental complaints and investigation procedure

16. The Committee of the Regions endorses the proposed minimum criteria for handling complaints. It should also be pointed out that dialogue and openness are needed to establish a positive atmosphere of cooperation and rally support for the environment.

The Committee of the Regions requests that regional and local representatives be allowed to have a say in setting up an appropriate body for handling complaints in the Member States, where such procedure is lacking.

17. The references to a non-binding investigation procedure are vague. The Committee of the Regions is opposed to the establishment of new tiers of organization in the Member States. This is a clear issue for subsidiarity.

Access to justice

18. The Commission believes that a possible way to step up application and enforcement of Community environmental legislation would be to ensure that individual environmental organizations recognized by Member States are given the right to bring judicial action.

The Committee of the Regions endorses the proposal in principle, but it must be left to the respective Member States to frame the details in accordance with current legal practice. The Committee of the Regions requests the Commission to amplify its proposals for complaints procedures and court access in conjunction with the national, regional and local authorities.

Part III: Reinforcing existing systems

Quality of Community legislation

19. The Committee of the Regions believes that a basic prerequisite for improving compliance with Community environmental laws is that the legislation itself be made simpler, clearer, and less detailed. EU environment law must establish both a framework within which the Member States are required to operate, and the common rules for application of this framework.

The Committee of the Regions believes that the Commission should review its legislative practices and principles. A major shortcoming in the current system is, for example, the lack of adequate instruction and information on Community environmental legislation.

20. The Commission calls for provisions to induce the Member States to publish information on the implementation of Community environmental legislation.

The Committee of the Regions is strongly opposed to a system which requires Member States to use binding, detailed tables when notifying the extent of implementation. This is not an effective way to follow up implementation of Community environmental legislation. The Committee recommends enhanced dialogue.

21. According to the Commission, the EU should aim towards some form of minimum level for sanctions, in order to ensure a level playing field.

The Committee of the Regions endorses this proposal.

22. The Commission will launch consultations when framing new proposals for Community environmental initiatives. Member States should ensure that they have cooperation mechanisms which enable consultation prior to the adoption of national transposing measures.

The Committee of the Regions endorses this proposal.

Transparency

23. The Committee of the Regions welcomes the expansion of the Commission's Annual Report on Monitoring the Application of Community Law, provided that the practical benefits clearly compensate for the increased cost of compiling the Report.

24. The Commission will consider the position of the informal IMPEL network as a useful instrument of cooperation, and put forward proposals for developing and reorganizing its tasks.

The Committee of the Regions feels that a major proviso for the development of the IMPEL system is that it should be cost-effective, and not become an unfunded burden on the regions and local authorities.

Improving cooperation

25. The Commission will use the Reporting Directive and close cooperation with the European Environment Agency to ensure that information is available on the effectiveness of Community environmental measures.

The Committee of the Regions welcomes the involvement of the Environment Agency, as long as due consideration is given to cost-effectiveness, as outlined above.

The Committee of the Regions does not believe that the interests of environmental policy will be served by an over-ambitious, detailed EU reporting system. The scope of such a system should be tailored to the actual requirements and benefits. Many of the EU's reporting requirements weigh heavily on regional and local bodies. The funding principle should be the decisive factor in deciding which type of reporting is needed from which level. Regional and local authority reporting requirements must correspond to a need for information; otherwise, either the EU or individual Member States must pay for the Report.

Promoting knowledge of Community environmental law

26. The Commission will consider initiatives for financial and technical assistance for increasing awareness in Community environmental law, in particular by judges, lawyers and officials of the Member States. Community finance in the framework of 'Life 2` can contribute to the improved application and enforcement of environmental legislation.

The Committee of the Regions welcomes the proposal.

Community funding and the implementation of Community environmental law

27. The Commission will consider additional measures to ensure that Community environmental law is fully integrated into decisions to grant financial assistance to Member States and in the monitoring of projects financed by the Community.

The Committee of the Regions feels that it should be possible to harness all EU economic instruments - particularly funding for agriculture - to achieve improved compliance with Community environmental law. In the Committee's view, reform of the agricultural support system should highlight environmental factors.

28. The Committee of the Regions takes a positive view of the continued initiatives for improved implementation of Community environmental legislation. The Committee welcomes further discussions on the action needed to boost Community environmental policy.

Brussels, 12 June 1997.

The Chairman of the Committee of the Regions

Pasqual MARAGALL i MIRA