Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the "Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the Community Environment Action Programme 2001-2010"

(2001/C 221/12)

On 21 February 2001 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 175 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal.

The Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 10 May 2001. The rapporteur was Mr Braghin.

At its 382nd plenary session of 30 and 31 May 2001 (meeting of 30 May), the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 115 votes to one with two abstentions.

1. Introduction

1.1. The Sixth Environment Action Programme "Environment 2010: Our future, Our choice" sets out to identify overall objectives and priority actions for the EU's future environment policy. It follows on from a consultation procedure which was initiated by the Commission in November 1999 with the Global Assessment of the Fifth Environment Action Programme ("Europe's Environment: What directions for the future?"), and also draws upon the report on the state of the environment prepared by the European Environment Agency ("Environment in the European Union at the turn of the century"). It was further fleshed out with a wide-ranging series of seminars and consultation meetings. The Committee played an active role at this preliminary stage, drawing up a critical opinion(1) which was discussed in the course of a seminar with a number of academic experts and commented upon in detail by the relevant Commission departments(2).

1.2. Rational use of the planet's natural resources and protection of the global ecosystem are vital to sustainable development: given the continued existence of a range of problems, the new programme singles out those environmental aspects which must be addressed if sustainable development is to be achieved. These include climate change, the loss of bio-diversity and natural habitats, soil erosion and deterioration, the growing volume of waste, the accumulation of chemical substances in the environment, noise pollution and a number of air and water pollutants.

1.3. Sustainable development means not only a cleaner environment, but the need to take account of the possible socio-economic implications, with the aim of improving the general quality of life for EU citizens. It also implies the Community reforming its own system of governance so as to reconcile not only socio-economic and environmental objectives, but also the different ways of achieving them(3).

1.4. The new programme seeks to define objectives and targets, explains how it is intended to use Community environmental policy instruments to this end, and highlights the action required in other policy fields. Special emphasis is laid on the need to continue to integrate environmental aspects into policies such as transport, energy and agriculture, and on the importance of land-use planning and regional and local initiatives to promote sustainable development.

1.5. The global assessment gave a mixed picture of the efficacy of EU environmental policy, singling out the incomplete implementation of EC environmental directives by the Member States and the need for stakeholders to take more responsibility for environmental protection efforts. The new programme focuses on two aspects in particular: improving the application of environmental legislation, and creating sustainable patterns of production and consumption by bringing in companies and encouraging them to innovate, and by providing more comprehensive, scientifically-based information for the general public.

1.6. The priority areas for action, which the Commission identifies and defines as facing the greatest problems, are:

- tackling climate change. Objective: to stabilise the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases at a level that will not cause unnatural variations of the earth's climate, by means of a comprehensive approach and close international cooperation;

- nature and bio-diversity. Objective: to protect and restore the functioning of natural systems and halt the loss of bio-diversity in the European Union and globally, and to protect soils against erosion and pollution;

- environment and health. Objective: to achieve a quality of the environment where the levels of man-made contaminants, including different types of radiation, do not give rise to significant impacts on, or risks to, human health;

- sustainable use of natural resources and management of wastes. Objective: to ensure that the consumption of renewable and non-renewable resources does not exceed the carrying capacity of the environment, and to achieve a decoupling of resource use from economic growth by significantly improving resource efficiency, dematerialisation of the economy, and waste prevention.

1.7. The strategic approach therefore seeks to move beyond a purely legislative stance, and to induce the necessary changes in our production and consumption patterns, as well as to encourage a consistent approach between policy-makers working on the environment and those in related fields. The programme puts forward five priority avenues of strategic action which may help in meeting the environmental objectives:

- improving the implementation of existing environmental legislation;

- integrating environmental concerns into decisions taken in other policy areas;

- encouraging closer cooperation with the market, by involving both businesses and consumers;

- empowering citizens and helping them to change their behaviour;

- encouraging better land-use planning and management.

1.8. The Sixth Programme will be applied in the context of an enlarged EU. The applicant countries will consequently need to make a start on implementing Community environmental legislation, with the support of Community financial programmes. Subsequent actions will have to reflect this broader perspective. At international level, it will be vital for environmental issues to be fully integrated into every aspect of the Community's external relations.

1.9. The part of the communication entitled "Policy-making based on participation and sound knowledge" ties the success of Community environmental policy to: regulation stimulating enterprises to innovate profitably, both in terms of their market and the environment; broad dialogue, supported by sound scientific and economic assessment, based on information and data on the state of the environment and on the pressure and driving forces behind environmental problems; the role of research in helping us to understand the nature of our interactions with the environment and their implications; and a systematic evaluation process in order to improve future policy and implementation. Dialogue between the public authorities at all levels, socio-economic actors and environmental and consumers' associations is also emphasised.

2. General comments

2.1. The Committee welcomes the Commission's proposal and agrees with the key points raised, including:

- the importance attached to environmental issues as an integral part of a sustainable development strategy;

- that environmental policy should become a real and integral part of all Community policies with a direct or indirect bearing on the environment;

- the urgent need for greener land-use planning and management;

- the need for stricter compliance with environmental requirements on the part of Member States and regional and local authorities;

- the advisability of involving and cooperating with business, and of encouraging consumers to opt for more eco-friendly products and patterns of behaviour, as part of a more systematic, long-term vision.

2.2. Under the Commission's chosen approach, the environment action programme limits itself to setting general aims rather than quantified objectives; for each of the four priority areas it simply outlines the problems, defines objectives and lists priority actions. The risk that many of the actions described will remain mere declarations of intent - thwarted by inertia, technical shortcomings and political resistance - must be forestalled, by establishing time-scales for achieving the identified objectives, the practical arrangements for pursuing them, how the various actions are to interconnect and create synergies, and by specifying how interaction and coordination are to be ensured between Community, national, regional and local authorities.

2.3. The Committee backs the aim of integrating environmental protection more fully into other Community policy areas, and appreciates the work recently undertaken to prepare a sustainable development strategy which would enable periodic checks to be made on the overall results achieved. It would urge that this integration be considered a priority at every official level, in view of the gaps and inconsistencies which remain in spite of the efforts made, and that the work on devising indicators and methods to measure results, which began with the Cardiff summit, be continued within each sectoral policy.

2.4. A dialogue was successfully conducted with all the parties concerned during the preparatory phase of the programme, backed up by reliable scientific and socio-economic assessments using information and data on the state of the environment, the pressures upon it, and the causes of its problems. Dialogue of this kind should serve not only as the working method for proper drafting of the planned implementing measures, but also as an opportunity to check on the implementation of the different actions by those responsible - Community, national or local authorities, economic sectors, or representatives of civil society organisations. The Committee regrets the absence of a "scoreboard", indicating progress in implementing all the planned measures. Similarly, there is no provision for a preliminary series of indicators which could be monitored immediately, in the light of the assessment of the Fifth Programme. The Committee proposes that the annual reports on the main environmental indicators be supplemented with information on the state of implementation of the planned initiatives, allowing better evaluation of their efficacy.

2.5. The Committee agrees on the urgent need to tighten up the implementation of existing legislation, and backs the Commission's intention of taking more vigorous action in cases of non-compliance. The Committee has commented specifically on implementation and monitoring and inspection instruments on previous occasions(4), and welcomes the Commission's recent moves to "name and shame" non-compliant Member States. It is also very interested in the proposal to harmonise provisions concerning environmental crime(5), on which it will issue a separate opinion. However, it believes that in addition to sanctions for infringement or non-compliance, it is also necessary to adopt a coherent package of measures encouraging compliance and providing incentives for exchange of best practice, transfer of eco-friendly technologies (which should be fostered by every possible means, tapping the wealth of experience accumulated by Community research programmes), and arrangements for identifying and rewarding good environmental performance by businesses and local authorities.

2.6. Progress needs to be made with implementing existing legislation on the product eco-label and on the adoption of the eco-management and audit scheme (EMAS)(6) for businesses, but the Committee does not consider this measure in itself to be enough to bring about ever-greater and more comprehensive respect for the environment. A further creative effort is needed to generate the conditions enabling market mechanisms to recognise ecological added value, and for the public authorities to streamline administrative arrangements, apply a green procurement policy, and foster more environment-friendly product design by offering new types of support specifically for SMEs. The Committee will turn to this specific issue in its opinion on the Green Paper on Integrated Product Policy, currently being prepared.

2.7. The Committee agrees with the Commission's view that subsidies must not, even indirectly, encourage environmentally harmful activities, but should favour the development of design and production processes for environment-friendly products. The financial sector's activities should also be geared to this end. However, the Committee feels that the proposed actions are lacking in substance, and calls on the Commission to give closer consideration, in conjunction with the relevant players, to the possible ways of implementing the actions, singling out instruments to foster and reward innovation and technological transfer of more eco-friendly processes and products under both integrated product policy and vertical provisions.

2.8. The Committee endorses the strategic approach of involving all the relevant social players in achieving environmental objectives, especially by means of educational and training activities, including continuous training within companies and sector associations. The Community must not however stop at expressing this view, or imagine that simply disseminating information is enough: it should become an active player in the process, or Europe may become even more fragmented in this area, mirroring the varying degrees of environmental awareness in the Member States.

2.9. Land-use planning and management unarguably represent a strategic resource, but must be taken as part of a broader approach ranging from urban development to transport networks, from social activities (e.g. sport and leisure) to those with a direct impact such as construction, agriculture and tourism. The Committee supports the proposal to launch a work programme to spread best practice and sustainable urban development, but will wait until the proposal is implemented before assessing the practical effectiveness of the instrument.

2.10. The Committee has already discussed climate change at length, and considers the objectives and targets proposed to be too general. In particular, it proposes that greater attention focus on those sectors with the greatest emission problems, in terms of either volume (electricity generation) or expected increase (transport, services), and in which the inadequate regulatory machinery means successful results cannot be guaranteed. Practical measures need to be put forward urgently in order to prove effective over a longer time-frame. The Committee is also convinced that priority should be given to innovative energy-saving approaches, at all levels and in all sectors, partly under the sixth framework programme for research currently being prepared.

2.11. While the use of eco-taxes is acceptable in principle, their impact on the environment, economic efficiency, the operation of the single market (also in the light of the significant intra-Community trade, which would require harmonisation of the corresponding fax policies) and European industrial competitiveness must be carefully evaluated, as any discrepancies between Member States or with other parts of the world could generate serious distortions in competition and development. Yields from tax and other fiscal instruments must be channelled towards environmental improvement, stimulating energy-saving and the use of clean energy sources.

2.12. The Committee supports the principle of protecting nature and bio-diversity, but regrets the generic nature of the actions proposed (except for the extension of the Natura 2000 network). It also regrets that the suggestions made in earlier opinions have not been heeded, particularly the opinion on the assessment of the Fifth Programme and the own-initiative opinion on forestry strategy(7). The Committee may subsequently comment in greater detail on the legislation to implement this policy. The Committee is preparing an own-initiative opinion on the state of nature and nature conservation in Europe, largely focusing on the question of how to reconcile agriculture and the protection of natural resources by reversing the purely quantitative approach of the CAP and ensuring more effective consultation between farmers, environmental bodies, consumers and tourists in order to trigger a virtuous circle for conserving resources.

2.13. The Committee welcomes the importance attached to the environment and health issue, and shares the concerns voiced by the Commission, as illustrated by numerous earlier opinions on the subject. It is vitally important to identify the risks to human health of each type or group of pollutants. This must be done on a sound scientific basis, with particular reference to specific population groups and the long-term effects of potentially hazardous substances. It is also important to understand the workings of these substances and how they penetrate the human body, in order to minimise exposure levels and, in each case, to assess the risk/benefit ratio. The Committee would also draw attention to the links between health, food safety, quality of life and the environment, and points to the views expressed in point 3.18 of its opinion on food law and the establishment of the European Food Authority regarding the consequences of pollution on the food chain.

2.14. The Committee agrees with the greater emphasis placed on prevention and precaution, especially where this means encouraging and facilitating the replacement of dangerous substances with less hazardous ones. It recommends applying the precautionary principle in a measured and balanced manner, with reference to the Commission document, the ESC opinion and the relevant resolution adopted by the Nice Council, which responded to a number of points made in the ESC opinion(8). In adopting this approach, care must also be taken to avoid distortions in international competition to the advantage of economic activities in less environmentally-aware countries. More particularly, the Committee calls upon the Commission to work in all international forums for the adoption of identical environmental standards as a legislative benchmark throughout the world.

2.15. The Committee supports the Commission's step-by-step approach to assessing chemicals produced in significant quantities and agrees that it is necessary to encourage practices reducing levels of pesticides in the environment which give rise to significant risks to or impacts on human health. It calls for a planned reduction in the use of pesticides, accompanied by use of organic production and biological integrated pest management (IPM) techniques, and for the rapid finalisation of the Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) and of the Rotterdam Convention. The Committee also advocates developing a single system for the testing, evaluation and risk management of new and existing produced or imported chemicals. It would however emphasise that this should be backed up by measures to alleviate the harmful effects of using metals, minerals and hydrocarbons. The Committee plans to consider these issues more specifically when it examines the White Paper on the Strategy for a future Chemicals Policy(9), which is one of the programme's cornerstones.

2.16. The objective of ensuring that the consumption of renewable and non-renewable resources does not exceed the carrying capacity of the environment is basically to be pursued by undertaking the necessary analysis in order to establish criteria for setting priorities, and by identifying and implementing specific strategies to reduce consumption of these resources. The suggested measures appear too theoretical, and the Committee is surprised that the assessment of the previous programme has not led to proposals for better targeted and more clearly defined action to translate these concepts into effective actions or incentives within a reasonable time-scale. The Committee considers that all measures must be carefully reviewed to prevent distortions in business competition and competitiveness, and that a balance needs to be struck between supply-side and demand-side action. In a market economy, supply is basically consumer driven, and for this reason the Committee considers that information and initiatives to steer consumers towards more eco-friendly products and suppliers must be a priority.

2.17. In principle, the Committee endorses the challenge of decoupling resource use from economic growth by significantly improving resource efficiency, "dematerialising" the economy and preventing waste. However, the practical proposals seem lacking in substance, especially regarding prevention and ways of encouraging an approach to design which reduces the generation of waste and pollution throughout the product lifecycle.

2.18. The Committee stresses the importance of checking that the Member States implement the framework directive on waste-management hierarchy, and especially of giving proper weight to energy saving. The Committee also hopes that highlighting quantitative targets will send a signal pointing the general public and the relevant authority in the right direction.

2.19. The Committee notes that energy saving and recovery are only mentioned in passing, although significant results could be achieved in this area, in both industrial and domestic settings, in waste management and in urban and land-use planning. This indicator should be a constant factor in cost/benefit analysis, and warrants close consideration in connection with the introduction of company environmental performance reward schemes.

2.20. The Committee emphasises that this programme is an essential element in facing up to the "sustainability" challenge(10), in which discussion centres on how to combine a dynamic economy with a society offering opportunity to all, and on practical measures permitting economic growth while safeguarding the environment.

2.21. It is now clear that the aim, both locally and globally, should be to usher in an era of fair, sustainable growth which undertakes to conserve resources for future generations. This is the European Union's approach in preparing for the Rio+10 summit to be held in South Africa in 2002. At the same time, it is reviewing its sectoral policies and drawing up a scale of priorities, based on the seriousness of the problems - or rather threats - involved, the time dimension, and the risks of irreversibility.

3. Conclusions and recommendations

3.1. The strategic approach put forward in the communication should be reinforced by an indication of (i) the key objectives around which the work of the Commission itself, the other authorities responsible and stakeholders should revolve, as well as of (ii) the integrated measures enabling these objectives to be achieved. The document is unintentionally undermined by the fact that the proposed list of actions seems to be jumbled together without any apparent order of priority and/or chronology. To remedy this, the Committee suggests:

- providing a summary table of legislative and non-legislative activities for the four priority areas, similar to that contained in the Annex to the White Paper on Food Safety;

- systematically setting out in a separate annex the problems encountered in managing the Fifth Programme and the limits encountered in integrating environmental policy into other Community policies, together with the conduct of the different authorities concerned;

- specifying practical performance indicators for use immediately or in the near future, the bodies responsible for implementing and applying them, monitoring and evaluation timetables and suggestions for action;

- indicating medium- and long-term quantitative objectives where possible, if only to facilitate discussion on realistic targets and integrated actions giving some prospect, over a planned timescale, of achieving the hoped-for results;

- identifying objectives to be attained at Community level according to a pre-established timetable, and how to incorporate them into national objectives, which local authorities must be charged with achieving;

- explaining the higher reference standards proposed, examining their impact on costs and their distribution among the different sectors, together with the implications for competitiveness.

3.2. On-going, systematic involvement of stakeholders is a prerequisite for meeting any environmental objective. The Committee emphasises that involvement should be understood in its broadest sense, covering all decision-makers at all stages of the process and all possible methods and instruments for training and educating authorities, businesses, trade unions, sectoral and consumer associations as well as the individuals concerned: taking the environmental dimension on board as a basic value and encouraging the performance of environmental services will be two of the most effective ways of shifting behaviour towards more environment-friendly patterns. The Committee calls for greater Community support in forging voluntary agreements, including at local level, as part of the announced framework regulation on voluntary environmental agreements.

3.3. Sustainable economic development in the applicant countries, based on new, clean technologies and improved environmental management, is vital to preserving their positive environmental aspects - which are due more to their relatively low level of development than to conscious choices. Raising the awareness of the general public and of the authorities and seeking their full involvement in appropriate economic restructuring, and in plans for urban development and transport - especially public transport - requires coherent action regarding both the full application of the acquis communautaire and the necessary funding. The Committee recommends greater clarity in identifying ways of redressing the apparent mismatch between the aim of spreading high environmental standards and the feeble resources made available for carrying out this operation.

3.4. Rewarding more environmentally-aware behaviour, in part through non-economic incentives (along the lines of eco-labelling), is globally a more effective instrument than sanctions, which risk pushing problems elsewhere while failing to provide the coherent environmental protection which is needed as part of a world view. The development of more environment-friendly production systems, processes, technologies and products should be seen as a form of innovation to be encouraged and rewarded, bringing all existing forms of incentive for innovation to bear. The Community and the Member States should engage in a coordinated and sustained effort to disseminate good practice and transfer clean technologies across the various industrial sectors.

3.5. Market instruments such as eco-taxes and environmental tax reforms should be examined more closely in order to assess the real benefits for the environment, and must address the need for a harmonised approach at Community level, without distorting competition within the Community or jeopardising the competitiveness of European industry. The Committee would strongly argue that, in keeping with their name, such forms of taxation should be used to foster more ecological products, technologies and methods and/or to restore the environment.

3.6. Tax incentives to promote technological innovation and guide industrial processes along more environment-friendly lines are also appropriate, provided they do not entail market distortions. In practice, enhancing the quality of life may have repercussions, including higher costs for industry and/or public finances: it must be ensured that this process affects all parts of the EU equally, and does not penalise European development.

3.7. The Commission should step up and accelerate its efforts to achieve consensus among all the Member States on this point, making a more thorough assessment of the socio-economic effects of applying these instruments in order to make a convincing case for them. It should also play an active role in international forums, especially concerning climate change, offering itself as a model and undertaking to press other countries and international organisations too - and not only environment-oriented ones - to meet the highest current standards. The aim should be to ensure fair competition and full compliance with environmental protection requirements throughout the world.

Brussels, 30 May 2001.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Göke Frerichs

(1) OJ C 204, 18.7.2000.

(2) Cf. ESC brochure 2001/2002 (available in English, French and German) which includes the Commission's comments on the ESC's proposals.

(3) The Committee is presently drawing up opinions on these specific aspects (sustainability and governance), OJ C 123, 25.4.2001.

(4) Cf. ESC opinions CES 455/97 in OJ C 206, 7.7.1997 and CES 448/99 in OJ C 169, 16.6.1999.

(5) Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on Protection of the environment through criminal law (COM(2001) 139 final).

(6) Cf. ESC opinion in OJ C 209, 22.7.1999; regulation in OJ L 114, 24.4.2001.

(7) OJ C 51, 23.2.2000.

(8) CES 800/2000 in OJ C 268, 19.9.2000.

(9) COM(2001) 88 final.

(10) OJ C 123, 25.4.2001.