30. 11. 87 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 319/1 
II 
(Preparatory Acts) 
ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Decision establishing a 5-year Community-wide 
programme of projects illustrating how actions in the environmental field can also contribute 
to employment creation 
(87/C 319/01) 
On 31 March 1987 the Council, acting under Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the 
European Economic Community asked the Economic and Social Committee for an Opinion 
on the abovementioned proposal. 
The Committee instructed its Section for Protection of the Environment, Public Health and 
Consumer Affairs to prepare the Opinion. The Section adopted its Opinion, based on the 
report by Mr Schmitz, on 1 September 1987. 
At its 248th plenary session on 23 and 24 September 1987 (meeting of 23 September) the 
Committee adopted the following Opinion unanimously, less 1 abstention: 
1. Introduction 
1.1. The European Council held in March 1985 
recognized the importance of environmental policy for 
economic growth and thus employment. The Single 
European Act specifically emphasizes this principle and 
the Economic and Social Committee had in fact already 
adopted an own-initiative opinion on this subject at its 
session on 28/29 September 1983 (1). 
1.2. Unemployment in the European Community has 
risen to an unacceptable, and in some regions, even 
disastrous level. The Commission's cooperative strategy 
for growth and employment which was expressely 
endorsed by the Economic and Social Committee and 
adopted by the Council of Ministers, refers explicitly 
to investing in the environment. The proposed 5-year 
programme could not solve the long-term problems of 
unemployment but the demonstration projects could 
indicate which types of environmental investment do 
create employment. At the last round of the Val-
Duchesse social dialogue held in May 1987 and attended 
by the President of the European Council, Mr Martens, 
the Commission broached the subject of promoting job-
creating investment in the environmental sector. This 
was endorsed by all participants. 
(!) OJ No C 341, 19. 12. 1983. 1.3. The need for environmental protection measures 
is enormous, especially in the fields of 
— clean air 
— noise abatement 
— water pollution control 
— waste management/derelict dumps 
— soil conservation 
— urban and industrial renovation 
— conservation of the countryside. 
1.4. The positive link between environmental meas­
ures and job-creation is not in general disputed. Opin­
ions differ as to the scale of new jobs created and on 
their short-term or long-term potential. This difference 
arises mainly because certain sectors benefit more from 
environmental measures while other sectors are 
adversely affected. 
1.4.1. To date, empirical data on the macroeconomic 
impact of environmental measures on employment are 
only available for individual countries. This research 
confirms that environmental measures have a clearly 
positive impact on employment. 
No C 319/2 Official Journal of the European Communities 30. 11. 87 
1.4.2. The Committee believes that in addition to 
the 5-year programme, empirical research into the link 
between environmental measures and employment 
should be carried out and extended to cover all the 
Member States. Special attention should be paid to the 
following questions: 
— What immediate impact on employment do environ­
mental technologies have at the producer or user 
stage? Research should cover not only the invest­
ment phase but also resulting costs. 
— Environmental measures are generally funded at the 
expense of other investment projects. The Com­
mission's research should therefore also include 
analyses of opportunity costs. 
— There is a common theory that jobs are lost by 
neglecting environmental protection. Steps should 
be taken to ascertain (a) whether businesses which 
are the first to provide environmentally beneficial 
production processes and products have a competi­
tive edge over other concerns and (b) whether their 
workforces expand in comparison. 
— What contribution does active environmental pro­
tection make to economic growth? The impact on 
the national economy should be assessed as well as 
the consequences at regional and sectoral level. 
1.4.3. The Committee believes that environmental 
measures are particularly likely to have a positive 
impact on employment if they also contribute to econ­
omic growth. The objective of qualitative growth can 
thus be pursued as already proposed by the Committee 
in various opinions (1). 
1.5. A vigorous environmental protection policy is 
essential to mitigate environmental damage. Environ­
mental measures are important in themselves and 
should therefore not be used as mere instruments of 
labour market policy. The development and implemen­
tation of new environmental technologies will of course 
generally create some new jobs. This on its own is not, 
however, sufficient justification for promoting demon­
stration projects in the environment sector. 
1.6. Skilled staff are needed tot develop environmen­
tal technologies. Suitable training measures should be 
devised and made available. 
(]) Cf. for example, the Committee Opinion on the continuation 
and implementation of a European Community Policy and 
Action Programme on the environment (1987-1992) (OJ No 
C 180, 8. 7. 1987). 2. General comments on the Commission's proposal 
2.1. Following the 4th Environment Programme, the 
Commission proposes support for demonstration pro­
jects designed to illustrate how measures in the en­
vironmental sector can contribute to job creation. The 
Committee endorses the proposal subject to the follow­
ing comments. 
2.2. Given their scale, demonstration projects can 
only have a marginal impact on the reduction of unem­
ployment. They should therefore act as a catalyst. The 
Committee believes that in specific cases, demon­
stration projects in the environmental sector can indeed 
effectively help to cut unemployment provided the fol­
lowing principles are observed: 
2.2.1. Demonstration projects would be particularly 
useful and should be promoted in regions which are 
hard hit by unemployment and have suffered great 
environmental damage. In such regions, essential 
environmental requirements frequently cannot be rec­
onciled with economic activities which help to keep 
unemployment down. In many cases, the environment 
is so heavily polluted that it is difficult to expand the 
capacity of existing concerns or to establish new plants. 
2.2.2. In its 4th Environment Programme the Com­
mission correctly emphasizes the importance of preven­
tive technologies. Production processes which use 
'clean' technologies and create no contaminants in the 
first place should therefore be tested under the demon­
stration projects to be promoted by the Commission. 
In regions where unemployment and pollution levels 
are high, there is a pressing need for 'rehabilitation 
technologies'. These would, in particular, include the 
restoration of soil contaminated by industry or agri­
culture, the prevention of soil erosion, the purification 
of wastes and effluents, the purification of exhaust 
fumes, noise abatement and city centre redevelopment. 
Demonstration projects involving the application of 
new rehabilitation technologies in these sectors make a 
concrete contribution to improving the environment 
and simultaneously boost the scope for economic 
growth in these regions. Old industrial regions, inten­
sive farming regions and tourist regions would benefit 
particularly. 
The Committee therefore proposes that demonstration 
projects should focus closely on rehabilitation technol­
ogies. Duplication with the Council Regulation on 
Community environmental action can then be avoided. 
30. 11. 87 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 319/3 
2.3. A substantial proportional of the improvement 
in employment levels is to be achieved by the develop­
ment and production of environmental technologies. 
Special efforts should therefore be made to ensure that 
the demonstration plants are set up and run by concerns 
already located or to be established in the regions 
concerned. Technology transfer and joint ventures 
between concerns from both highly developed regions 
and backward areas may be useful instruments. Care 
should be taken to implement particularly suitable tech­
nologies which can also be applied by workers and 
businessmen in the region. 
2.4. Demonstration projects should as far as possible 
be promoted within the context of regional develop­
ment programmes and should complement the activities 
of the structural funds. This would make it easier to 
ensure (a) that the qualifications required to operate 
the demonstration projects were provided by staff 
drawn from the ranks of the unemployed (financial 
support from, for example, the Social Fund) and (b) that 
the necessary infrastructure was available (financial 
support from, for example, the Regional Fund and the 
European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund 
(EAGGF). Every attempt should also be made to bring 
the environmental technologies up to a level where they 
can be used for production in businesses in the affected 
areas. To this end, the European Regional Development 
Fund (ERDF) procedures would have to be loosened 
up. The Committee therefore urges the Commission to 
draw up a Community Regional Programme for the 
dissemination of environmental technologies. 
2.5. The aim of demonstration projects must be to 
create lasting employment. Otherwise the justification 
for projects will be undermined. It should also be 
remembered that only the prospect of long-term 
employment will motivate staff to acquire the necessary 
skills. We therefore recommend that the demonstration 
projects should culminate in permanent services and 
production plants which serve the conservation impera­
tive. 
2.6. A number of demonstration projects in the 
environmental sector are already being supported inde­
pendently by the Member States. The Commission 
should therefore promote only those measures which 
go beyond existing demonstration projects. The Com­
mittee believes that demonstration projects should only 
be promoted: 
— if they are additional (no duplicate financing), 
— if they are innovatory, 
— if they can be put to use in different regions of the 
Community. 
2.7. The Committee also proposes that demon­
stration projects be given preference where: they involve concrete cooperation between govern­
ment or regional authorities, private concerns, trade 
unions and recognized conservation groups; 
they would be suitable for cross-frontier initiatives. 
2.8. Care must be taken to ensure that the promotion 
of demonstration projects does not lead to the violation 
of the 'polluter pays' principle. 
3. Specific comments 
3.1. Article 1 
3.1.1. The Committee endorses the Commission pro­
posal that a progress report be submitted after the 
initial phase of three years. The Committee would 
however expect this report to be referred to the Econ­
omical and Social Committee (CES) too. 
3.1.2. The progress report must deal concretely with 
the individual demonstration projects. All the projects 
to be funded should receive aid as from 1988 so that 
as many projects as possible can yield tangible results 
within three years. 
3.2. Article 2 
3.2.1. The Committee believes that demonstration 
projects should in particular be promoted under Com­
munity-financed Regional Development Programmes. 
3.2.2. The Commission proposes that the demon­
stration projects should be subsidized to the tune 
between 20 % and 80 %. The range is considerable. The 
Committee understands the Commission's concern to 
retain some flexibility in the granting of support to 
'projects. Since, however, the support range is so wide, 
we urge the Commission to establish clear criteria for 
subsidies of 20%, 50% or 80%, for example. These 
criteria should take into account the degree of pollution 
and the unemployment rate in the individual regions, 
as well as the potential contribution of demonstration 
projects to reducing pollution and unemployment. 
3.3. Article 4 
The Advisory Committee must include not only govern­
ment experts but also specialists from representative 
environmental organizations, trade unions and 
employers associations who would be involved in plan­
ning and establishing demonstration plants. Occasional 
involvement of experts would be quite inadequate from 
the point of view of those concerned. 
No C 319/4 Official Journal of the European Communities 30. 11. 87 
3.4. Annex I and II 
The criteria, priorities (Annex I) and questions 
(Annex II), listed in the annexes should be revised. They 
are not systematic and, moreover, no clear priorities are 
discernible. It is unclear how precisely regions suffering 
from severe pollution and high unemployment can be 
helped by demonstration projects. The Committee 
would suggest that rehabilitation technologies should 
be a major priority. 
4. Conclusions 
4.1. The Committee recognizes that the Commission 
proposal breaks new ground and can certainly contrib-
Done at Brussels, 23 September 1987. ute to improving the environment and cutting unem­
ployment in individual cases. 
4.2. The Committee broadly supports the Com­
mission proposal to illustrate how employment can 
be created by promoting environmental demonstration 
projects, provided the suggestions made here are 
heeded. 
4.3. Steps should be taken to ensure that the proposal 
complements rather than clashes with the draft Regu­
lation on Community Environmental Action. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alfons MARGOT