Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on Cohesion policy and the environment` (97/C 30/05)

On 9 February 1996, the Commission decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on Cohesion policy and the environment.

The Section for Regional Development and Town and Country Planning, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 17 September 1996. The Rapporteur was Mr Mercé Juste.

At its 338th Plenary Session held on 25 and 26 September 1996 (meeting of 25 September 1996), the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following Opinion with 96 votes in favour and three abstentions.

1. Introduction

The Communication seeks to create the conditions for greater synergy between cohesion and environmental policies in the implementation of Structural Fund and Cohesion Fund programmes.

The Committee takes the view that the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund are the main instruments for achieving economic and social cohesion (). These two instruments should, therefore, be the focus of increased synergy between cohesion and environmental policies. Moreover, the importance of the environment was formally recognized through the addition of an environmental dimension to the rules governing the Structural Funds, when these were reviewed in 1993. This process was further consolidated with the creation of the Cohesion Fund. The ESC has issued Opinions on these subjects (), and also on the Community programme 'Towards Sustainability` (). The implementation of this programme serves as a model for the Communication now under consideration.

The quality of the environment is a potential indicator of social prosperity and it is recognized that social indicators reflect the attractiveness of a location and that this has a direct impact on economic development. The Committee thus believes it necessary to make a new political commitment to the implementation of environmental measures.

The ESC has always advocated greater coordination between policies, whether national or Community. It therefore firmly supports proposals aiming to give policies an environmental dimension, in this instance the Structural Funds.

The ESC welcomes the Communication, but wishes to make certain comments and restate a number of principles.

2. Comments

2.1. The Committee is aware of the limitations of the current legal framework for the purposes of attaining the objective of greater synergy between the cohesion and environmental policies. This kind of exercise is useful, however, since the work involved will generate new ideas which may have an impact on the general revision of the rules governing the Funds planned for 1999.

2.2. The Committee acknowledges the progress made in incorporating environmental considerations into cohesion policy, both through revision of the rules governing the Structural Funds in 1993 - by including the environmental dimension in every stage of the drafting and implementation of programmes - and the creation of the Cohesion Fund. It would, however, point to the importance of the challenge facing the European Union in the years to come: to ensure that the design and implementation of cohesion policy are compatible with sustainable development and environmental rules and with the progress which is being made on these fronts.

2.3. In the Committee's view it is important to use the horizontal dynamic implicit in the integration of the environmental factor into Structural Funds policy in order to further rationalize the programmes in relation to their impact (improve the balance between costs and social and environmental benefits) and to ensure a more effective synergy between the Funds. For instance, the Funds assessment reports often refer to ERDF or EAGGF investments in the environment (sewage treatment plants, waste treatment plants) without any provision being made in the ESF for the training of operators.

2.4. By the same token, consideration should be given to improving the synergy between environmental policy and R& TD actions, especially the specific programmes and the integration of environmental concerns into these programmes.

2.5. One of the factors which, the Committee feels, will determine whether further integration of the totality of environmental measures into cohesion policy is successful is the degree of cooperation established with the Member States and, where appropriate, the regions, subject to the principle of subsidiarity.

2.6. As regards the Cohesion Fund's function as a link between cohesion and environmental policies, the Committee supports the Commission's aim of striking a 'suitable balance` (a 50/50 distribution of funds) between transport infrastructure and environmental projects, and the application of a flexible strategy to achieve this. In this respect the Committee would point out that this balance should be attained over the whole period for which the Fund runs (1993-1999) and not for each year separately. On the other hand, as investment in the environment is generally less expensive than transport investment, a larger number of environmental projects will need to be financed if balance is to be achieved. The Committee would refer to its Opinion on the Annual Report - Cohesion Financial Instrument 1993/1994 and the 1994 Annual Report - Cohesion Fund, in which it pointed to the advisability of attaining such a balance.

Moreover, it should be borne in mind that many transport projects (e.g. promotion of public transport) may make a positive contribution to improving the environment. The Committee thus wishes to draw the Commission's attention to the advisability of taking full account of the environment in the selection of transport projects.

2.7. Structural Fund aid for direct investment, in environmental projects has grown in recent years. Whereas during the period 1989-1993 ECU 2,8 billion was spent in Objective 1, 2 and 5b areas, over ECU 9,4 billion has been earmarked for the period 1994-1999 to support such environmental action. The Committee welcomes these developments and supports the introduction of additional measures to ensure that environmental issues are better catered for.

The Committee would likewise underline the importance of paying particular attention in Community initiatives to innovative measures making for better environmental protection.

2.8. The Communication particularly stresses the increase in aid to finance productive investment, which not only has an indirect positive impact on the environment, but also helps to achieve sustainable development and improve employment prospects.

The Committee supports the Commission's efforts to identify, both in the review of programming documents and in specific Community initiatives, the kind of preventive projects which should be given priority in future. In this connection, the ESC advocates priority for local and regional development projects which promote products and services, especially those of SMEs, and at the same time contribute to the creation of new, environment-related jobs. The Committee feels that the environment is a suitable area for local development initiatives, and these deserve particular attention (), especially with regard to the evaluation of new experience, and the dissemination and promotion of best practice in the development and creation of employment using transnational information and cooperation networks.

The Committee also highlights the importance of an environment-orientated human resources policy using measures to improve the quality of education and training, raising public awareness of these questions and improving workforce skills, thus enabling workers more effectively to meet the demands of the labour market.

2.9. Respect for the environment should be a criterion in selecting projects; i.e. the environmental impact of projects would be systematically assessed. The ESC also considers that it should be the task of the monitoring committees to assess the environmental dimension as part of the follow-up activities, and when programmes are assessed generally.

The Committee points out the importance of using reliable indicators in order to assess the environmental impact of the measures adopted more accurately. To this end it urges that steps be taken to obtain more environmental data, properly broken down, to help towards a more objective assessment. The Committee also feels that greater use should be made of technical assistance in order to improve the techniques used for the economic assessment of projects.

2.10. The Committee regrets that in the past the Commission has not played a more active role in preventing infringements of environmental rules in connection with the activities of the Structural Funds and Cohesion Fund. To remedy this situation, the Committee calls on the Commission to draw up appropriate measures as soon as possible. It also supports any sanction proceedings initiated by the Commission in respect of infringements of the rules, including the repayment of Community funds. The Committee considers that a list should be drawn up of genuine environmental measures - prevention, rehabilitation, sustainable development - in the form of a didactic or indicative catalogue; this could serve as a guide to options for those framing programmes (national and regional authorities) and to avoid possible infringements later.

2.11. The Committee reiterates the importance of the involvement of the economic and social partners at every stage of the drawing-up, implementation and follow-up of action carried out under the Structural Funds, in compliance with Article 4 of the Framework Regulation (). Furthermore, local environmental organizations, which play a particular part in this connection, should be consulted.

2.12. In order to achieve more transparency and - especially - fuller information on the results of the initiatives listed in the Communication, the Committee recommends that the Commission produce an annual report assessing how far the environmental dimension has been integrated into the application of the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund; a study of environmental projects financed under Article 10 of the Structural Funds Framework Regulation would be useful.

2.13. An important feature of the environment is that it does not stop at frontiers. The EU's environmental role should serve as a model for its neighbours, especially those which have applied for EU membership or have announced their intention of doing so. Their future accession will entail the entry into force of Community environmental legislation. Environmental questions should therefore be given their proper place in pre-accession agreements.

Similarly, the possibility should be studied, within the framework of development aid policy, of encouraging these countries to adopt industrial policies which take account of the environment, and in particular the development and use of clean technologies.

Cooperation with other neighbouring countries (in the Mediterranean region and with the Baltic States) should be stepped up, with encouragement for the use of instruments enabling environmental considerations to be taken into account. In this connection, use would have to be made of Community initiatives (of the Interreg II C type), or other instruments which provide for increased transnational cooperation on environmental protection.

2.14. With a view to applying the principles enunciated in this Communication as effectively as possible, the Committee considers that it would be extremely useful to be able to call on the potential support and know-how of the European Environment Agency; consequently it regards improved cooperation with the latter as essential, and also takes the view that the Agency's role should be strengthened.

2.15. The Committee wonders how the Commission intends to follow up the Communication. It calls on the Commission to translate the principles contained in the Communication into concrete measures.

Brussels, 25 September 1996.

The President of the Economic and Social Committee

Carlos FERRER

() OJ No C 153, 28. 5. 1996.

() OJ No C 201, 26. 7. 1993; OJ No C 82, 19. 3. 1996.

() OJ No C 138, 17. 5. 1993.

() OJ No C 18, 22. 1. 1996.

() OJ No C 127, 7. 5.1994.