[pic] | COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES |

Brussels, 30.4.2007

SEC(2007) 546

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying document to the COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS on the Mid-term review of the Sixth Community Environment Action Programme

IMPACT ASSESSMENT {COM(2007) 225 final}{SEC(2007) 547}

Table of Content

1. Procedural Issues and Consultation of Interested Parties 4

1.1. Purpose of this Impact Assessment 4

1.2. Collection of information and data 5

1.2.1. Internal expertise 5

1.2.2. External expertise 5

1.3. Consultation of interested parties 7

1.3.1. Public stakeholder consultation 7

1.3.2. Member State consultation 10

1.3.3. Input from specific stakeholders 11

2. Problem Definition 13

2.1. The current state of the environment 13

2.1.1. Climate change 13

2.1.2. Nature and biodiversity 14

2.1.3. Environment, Health and the Quality of Life 15

2.1.4. Natural resources and wastes 16

2.2. The changed policy context 16

2.2.1. The renewed EU Sustainable Development Strategy 16

2.2.2. The Lisbon Strategy 17

2.2.3. The Commission's Better Regulation policy 17

2.3. Underlying problems 18

2.3.1. Poor integration of policies 18

2.3.2. The existing implementation gap 19

2.3.3. Insufficient international co-operation 20

3. Objectives 21

4. Mid-term review options 21

5. Analysis of the impacts of the different options 23

5.1. Analysis of the Mid-term Review Options 24

5.2. Specific initiatives based on the Community framework for action 26

6. Comparing the Mid-term Review options 30

7. Monitoring and evaluation 32

Annex: Progress with the implementation of the 6th EAP - Environmental trends and perspectives in the four priority areas.

1. Introduction 33

2. Climate change 33

2.1. Illustrative Trends and prospects 33

2.2. Illustrative examples of actions taken so far 43

3. Nature and Biodiversity 47

3.1. Illustrative trends and prospects 47

3.2 Illustrative examples of actions taken so far 53

4. Environment, Health and the Quality of Life 59

4.1. Illustrative trends and prospects 59

4.2. Illustrative examples of actions taken so far 65

5. Natural Resources and Wastes 71

5.1. Illustrative Trends and prospects 71

5.2. Illustrative examples of actions taken so far 76

6. International issues 78

6.1. Illustrative examples of actions taken so far 78

7. Strategic-approaches to environmental policy-making 81

7.1. Illustrative examples of actions taken so far 81

Annex: Chronological list of illustrative actions taken so far 91

1. PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES

1.1. Purpose of this Impact Assessment

Virtually since its origin in the mid-1970s, EU environment policy has been structured and planned by successive action programmes. These action programmes have set out the orientations and the main environmental priorities for a given period of time, the aim being to ensure a consistent and coherent strategy for the delivery of EU environment policy.

The Sixth Community Environment Action Programme[1] (hereinafter: "6th EAP") establishes the Community framework for environment policy for the period from July 2002 to July 2012. Article 11(1) of the 6th EAP calls for a mid-term review in the fourth year of operation of the Programme, in order to, " evaluate the progress made in its implementation, together with associated environmental trends and prospects. This should be done on the basis of a comprehensive set of indicators" [2]. The mid-term review should be completed in the " fourth year of operation of the Programme ", and a Report on it should be submitted subsequently to the European Parliament and Council[3].

Correspondingly, the Communication on the mid-term review of the 6th EAP to which this Impact Assessment refers is a Report which summarises progress made with the implementation of the 6th EAP based on an assessment of the state of the environment and contains future orientations for the Community's environment policy for the remaining 6th EAP period (i.e. up to 2012), taking into account the changed policy context, notably the renewed Sustainable Development Strategy and the Lisbon Strategy as well as the Commission's Better Regulation agenda.

This Impact Assessment's scope and methodology are intended to be proportionate to the objective and nature of the mid-term review to which it refers. Since this is a mid-term review of an existing policy framework whose duration has six more years to run, the strategic options are limited and the impact assessment carried out is therefore essentially qualitative[4]. Furthermore, a full review of the implementation of the 6th EAP would only be possible towards the end of 2010, when the 6th EAP ends.

The remainder of this Section sets out the methodology of this Impact Assessment and provides details on the consultation of interested parties. Section 2 focuses on the problem definition. Section 3 spells out the objectives of the mid-term review, followed by policy options in Section 4. Section 5 assesses the impacts of the options, which are then compared in Section 6. Section 7 identifies the monitoring and evaluation arrangements.

1.2. Collection of information and data

Preparation for the 6th EAP mid-term review started in 2004. It began with the collection of information and data from an extensive number of sources and the initiation of a consultation process with a wide range of interested parties. The following paragraphs present a summary of the main procedural steps followed in the collection of information and data, as well as the results of the various consultations.

1.2.1. Internal expertise

During 2004 and 2005, the Commission services in the Environment Directorate General ('DG Environment') drafted a series of "summary reviews", covering the four priority areas and the two cross-cutting areas identified in the 6th EAP: Climate Change; Nature & Biodiversity; Environmental and Health and Quality of Life; Sustainable Use and Management of Natural Resources and Wastes; Implementation & Enforcement and Policy Instruments; and Strategic Approaches. These summary reviews sought to identify the key actions taken to achieve the main objectives established by the 6th EAP and to provide a preliminary evaluation of the state of the environment in each of the given areas.

The summary reviews were complemented by information from a number of external sources. These were the points of departure for further discussions with a panel of experts, specially convened for the purpose, which met in Brussels on 28 April 2006 (see below).

Other important internal sources of information were the impact assessments the Commission made for its different initiatives, not only in the field of the environment, but also in other policy areas such as energy and transport.

1.2.2. External expertise

Together with the information provided by the Commission services, a considerable number of external expert sources were consulted. These included the report of the European Environment Agency (EEA) entitled, "The EU Environment - State and Outlook 2005", and the EEA 'Core Set of Indicators' covering a wide range of physical data relating to the EU environment, provided primary information. These were the main sources of quantitative and environmental indicators data on changes in the state of the environment in the EU. To provide a more global reference perspective, the 2005 UN Millennium Ecosystem Assessment was also used extensively as a reference work.

Other sources of sector-specific information included the International Energy Agency World Energy Outlook (2005); background and discussion papers prepared by the Finnish Presidency of the European Union for the Informal Meeting of Environmental Ministers on 14-16 July 2006[5], notably the paper entitled, 'Towards a new generation of EU Environment Policy'; and the Report of the Court of Auditors on the integration of environmental considerations into the Commission's Development Co-operation policy proposals[6].

Finally, a report by the Institute for European Environmental Policy[7], prepared for the European Environmental Bureau (a consortium of environmental non-government organisations) as a basis for their commentary, provided a useful, independent critical view on the progress of policy so far under the 6th EAP.

On 28 April 2006, a panel of environment experts was convened to assess the summary reviews on the key priority areas of the 6th EAP, and to comment. The main conclusions of the panel of experts are summarised thus:

- The four priority areas identified by the 6th EAP should clearly remain current for the remainder of the period. In the view of the expert panel, although some progress under the 6th EAP has been made, further work remains to be done if all objectives are to be reached. Moreover, in many environment policy areas, it would be premature to try to assess the results of policies adopted so far – i.e. just 4 years into a 10-year programme – because the results of implementation will, in most cases, not yet be apparent.

- Cross-cutting aspects of policy, in particular integration and implementation, need considerably more emphasis. Innovative – even radical – ways to improve implementation and enforcement need to be further explored. If the decision is taken to adopt further measures, EU action through regulatory instruments is to be preferred over voluntary schemes or other 'soft' approaches. The experts feared that over-reliance on national action plans to implement policy would lead to excessive divergence, in terms of achievements, between Member States.

- Environment should be a more readily integrated component in other sectors whose policies are based on sustainable development principles, and its importance in those other policy areas – especially those which clearly impact the environment – should be upgraded.

- Research in the field of environment should be more explicitly encouraged and financed at EU level. Conversely, a lack of incontrovertible research evidence in support of a particular policy line ought not to be used as an excuse for inaction.

- Sufficient budget must be made available at EU and national levels to meet the 6th EAP objectives. Financing for environment action should stem not only from environmental programmes, such as LIFE, but further synergies with other policies and funds should be exploited. EU financial resources should be programmed so as to be complementary to environment funding by Member States.

- Finally, there was a general view that more political effort should be made in order to educate and involve citizens and to motivate the business, industrial and other competitive and non-trading sectors in favour of the achievement of environmental objectives[8].

1.3. Consultation of interested parties

1.3.1. Public stakeholder consultation

A public internet consultation on the mid-term review of the 6th EAP was launched on the Europa " Your Voice " website, where it ran from 29 May to 17 July 2006. The purpose of this consultation was to gather views from the general public on the 6th EAP, to see how people perceived the progress made so far, and to gather views on which main issues should matter most in the future. The consultation consisted of some background information on the 6th EAP, and a multiple choice questionnaire to be completed on an anonymous basis.

280 replies were received. The consultation was not addressed to a particular sector or group of stakeholders, but to the general public. 80% of the replies came from individuals rather than organisations. Of the remaining 20%, replies were equally split between environmental NGOs, Industry, Public administrations, Business organisations, Academic institutions, Consumers' organisations and 'others'.

[pic]

Most of the replies came from participants who considered themselves to be 'well informed' (37.1%) or 'informed' (35.7%) about environmental issues. The general comments that can be made about the public consultation are summarised below[9].

- The first set of questions concerned general issues on environmental priorities and on the Commission's consultation policy regarding the seven Thematic Strategies which the 6th EAP contains. There was a general satisfaction on the way and extent to which the Commission had engaged in consultation with stakeholders. However, an important percentage of participants said that they could not answer this question.

- Two main issues seemed to be of particular concern to the participants: sustainable production and consumption (42.5%) and the reduction of greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions (39.6%). These concerns were followed in the ranking by the need for "sustainable use of land and sea" (30.4%) and issues associated with biodiversity (22.5%).

- On the progress made over the past four years in meeting the 6th EAP objectives, participants were highly dissatisfied with the progress made on nature and biodiversity (49.3% disagreed with the statement that the EU had made satisfactory progress). This revealed the keen lack of visibility of the work over the last 4 years at EU level on nature and biodiversity – a 6th EAP priority area.

Furthermore, in some areas such as climate change, while a high percentage of participants saw some progress (47.9%), this was often qualified by the statement that important areas remain insufficiently addressed or that further measures need to be adopted.

- Regarding climate change, the EU Emissions Trading Scheme was the most highly-valued policy instrument, closely followed by 'promotion of renewable energies', the 'agreements with car manufacturers on CO2 emissions reduction' and the policies on 'energy labelling'. The replies indicated that participants placed the need to ensure effective action over several policy areas higher than the need to set overall priorities in tackling greenhouse gas emissions. One area standing out as more important than others was 'tackling greenhouse gas emissions from transport'.

The majority of participants agreed with the priorities set up in the Commission paper "Winning the Battle against Climate Change"[10] (53.2%). Moreover, 88.6% agreed or tended to agree that climate change policy could also serve to create economic growth and competitiveness for the EU.

- On nature and biodiversity issues, opinions were divided on the question as to whether EU environment policy actions were adequate and effective in protecting nature and biodiversity across the European Union. 45% considered that they were not sufficient, while 41.1% said that this would depend on how efficiently Member States implemented them.

A clearer message came from the question about the EU taking further action on GMO (Genetically Modified Organisms) risk management, in order to prevent environmental damage. Here a clear majority was in favour of further measures.

Similarly, there was broad support for further integration of policies aiming to protect nature and wildlife into other sectoral policies such as transport, energy, agriculture, fisheries and regional development, in order to reduce negative impacts on the environment and to improve the long-term competitiveness of these sectors.

On the other hand, the participants preferred not to privilege any particular line of policy in contributing to the protection of nature and biodiversity. Developing and adopting the framework for dealing with climate change mitigation and fragmentation of habitats, the protection of marine eco-systems and seas, the focus on implementation of the Habitats and Birds Directives and exploring and filling possible gaps in the legal framework, were all felt to be necessary to achieve the objectives.

- In the area of sustainable use and management of natural resources and wastes, there was not a clear priority preference in favour of any particular policy action, but importance was attached to encouraging 'sound and sustainable product design'. The general opinion was that resources, wastes and products should all be tackled together, but that more priority had to be given to some other aspects, in particular waste prevention and eco-design.

- The environment policy role of the EU in the international sphere emerged as an important issue. 69.3% of the participants were of the opinion that the EU should do more to integrate environmental concerns into all areas of international relations. Among the tools to do this, the promotion of sustainable practices in foreign investments and export credits was the most favoured.

- Finally, the questionnaire included a set of general questions on the way forward and future actions to be taken. In this respect, the majority of participants (66%) agreed or tended to agree that the four priority areas established by the 6th EAP remain valid for the remaining 6th EAP period and should be retained.

Support to the four priority areas of the 6 th EAP[11] [pic]

- As regards the 'strategic approaches' contained in the 6th EAP (policy implementation, integration of environment into other policies, collaboration with the business and industrial sectors, development of new Community legislation and revision of the existing acquis ), participants did not show a clear preference, but favoured tackling environmental policy challenges through a combination of instruments. However, more effective implementation of Community legislation at the Member State level was identified as an important area for a revised strategic approach.

1.3.2. Member State consultation

Member States were also consulted on the mid-term review of the 6th EAP, notably within the framework of the Environment Policy Review Group (EPRG)[12] of 29 March 2006.

Member States shared the view that the 6th EAP priorities should be retained for the remaining 6th EAP period. Some Member States considered that efforts should be concentrated mainly in one or other of these areas, while the majority favoured particular attention on Climate Change and Biodiversity issues, as well as further action in the area of sustainable production and consumption. Certain Member States also underlined other issues such as the use of land and sea and the need for more environment research.

There was also a general view that the mid-term review should be considered in the light of the renewed EU Sustainable Development Strategy (notably in relation to the importance of reaching sustainable production and consumption.) The mid-term review was seen as an opportunity to highlight the linkages between the 6th EAP and the Lisbon Agenda and the complementarity of their respective objectives.

In the area of climate change, many Member States underlined the need for reaching an international agreement for the post-2012 period and called for the EU to maintain the international lead in that process. Some Member States also requested the Commission to propose further measures at EU level, in particular in the field of transport, energy and the construction industry.

Most Member States pointed out the practical difficulties underlying the 2010 target to halt biodiversity loss in the EU. The Action Plan on Biodiversity was largely supported and further measures were suggested, such as the inclusion of biodiversity targets in other sectoral policies and taking additional action to ensure the resistance of ecosystems to damage from the effects of climate change. Some Member States also called for new measures in favour of the marine environment, GMOs, forestry, and protection of habitats. The financing of the Natura 2000 network remained a concern for some Member States.

Some concerns were raised on the need for further steps on the protection of human health against threats from sources such as air pollution from transport, and pollution from chemical products. The implementation of the REACH (Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals) Regulation was strongly supported by Member States. There was, however, some dissatisfaction with the delays in the adoption of EU water quality legislation and a few pointed out the necessity of anticipating potential risks to health from certain new technologies, citing nanotechnologies. They also underlined the importance of maximising its potential benefits, however.

The sustainable use and management of natural resources and wastes as highlighted as a key area of concern in relation to sustainable production and consumption. Overall, Member States confirmed their support for the objective of decoupling economic growth from environmental degradation. Several Member States expressed their disappointment with the lack of targets in the Thematic Strategies on Natural Resources and Wastes and expected that waste reduction targets would be established under the forthcoming EU Action Plan on Production and Consumption.

There was a general view among the Member States that more progress would be needed regarding the goals set by the "strategic approaches" section of the 6th EAP. Member States agreed that implementation of environment legislation and the process of integration of environmental concerns into other policy areas ('Cardiff progress') needed to be revitalised. Indeed, integration was seen as an important tool for bridging the implementation gap between policy objectives and actual achievement of the required changes in the environment. Integration of environmental objectives should also be taken into account by the Community financing programmes, which should more readily include environmental criteria in their programming requirements.

Certain Member States expressed the view that legislation is to be preferred over so-called "soft-law" approaches. Others called for more flexible policies as one way to solve implementation problems, arguing that better results would ensue if flexibility to take account of local conditions could be maximised. The majority opinion considered the recourse to co-ordination mechanisms (such as exchange of best practices, peer review and IMPEL) as a useful complement to regulatory action and supported further use of economic and market-based instruments and reduction and/or elimination of subsidies that can bring about negative environmental impacts. Member States also agreed to increase the use of impact assessments and strategic environmental assessments, as well as pursuing a more systematic application of "Better Regulation" principles.

On the international dimension of environment policy, there was overwhelming support for the statement that environmental goals need to be reflected more consistently in EU external relations policies. Most Member States favoured EU support for the creation of an environment organisation at international level, under UN auspices.

1.3.3. Input from specific stakeholders

In parallel with the online public consultation, the Commission undertook consultations with specific groups of stakeholders. These covered business associations, the EU eco-innovation industry, social partners, consumer associations and non-governmental organisations (NGOs).

All stakeholders agreed on retaining the 6th EAP priority areas and objectives. Although recognising that progress has been made in a number of areas, all stakeholders also agreed that effective implementation of the 6th EAP remained a key concern. Several underlined particular shortcomings in the areas of biodiversity and waste management.

Stakeholders indicated that the consequences of inadequate policy implementation are numerous. In addition to the obvious element that agreed policy objectives are not being met if implementation is under-resourced or inadequate for some other reason, inadequate implementation is seen to create uneven business competitivity conditions. For example, the potential for investment in clean technologies and for job creation in the eco-innovation industry is almost certainly under-exploited, due in part to uncertainty (and so less investment) among those in the industry about future demand for their products and expertise.

Stakeholders proposed different ways of addressing the 'implementation gap'. For trade unions, employees associations and environmental NGOs, the incremental trend towards "soft law" instruments – e.g. voluntary agreements, new standards, codes of conduct – undermined progress towards environment policy objectives. Some NGOs criticised the use of 'framework Directives', which they saw as relying on reporting obligations rather than on specific targets and deadlines. They feared that the Thematic Strategies were 'empty shells' and emphasised that they should be followed-up by appropriate legislative and other policy action. In the view of most trade unions and NGOs, soft law instruments should be complementary to legislation and should only be used when lack of political impetus stood in the way of regulation at EU level. Most NGOs called for stronger EU implementation and enforcement strategies and for an increase in the resources being deployed on implementation within the Commission.

Although most business associations called for clear targets in EU environment legislation, they also favoured more freedom of manoeuvre on the means of achieving those targets, supporting an increased use of flexible instruments. They asked for legislation to be accompanied by a detailed assessment of the impact of all expected economic, social and environmental outcomes.

All stakeholders expressed concerns about the use of impact assessments when proposing new legislation. Consumer associations called for the equal weighting of all three dimensions of sustainable development in all EU sectoral policies. In addition, trade unions underlined the need to ensure sufficient financial capacity to take the necessary actions to implement environmental laws and suggested to quantify the investments needed for effective implementation.

Most stakeholders also expressed concerns about the integration of environmental considerations into other EU policies. For instance, trade unions mentioned that the latest employment guidelines did not mention environment, nor any specific action to develop education and training on environment. They considered that employment policies should better integrate environmental concerns and that 'professionalisation' of environmental protection could significantly contribute to the creation of new jobs.

In general, all stakeholders agreed that there should be more coherence between environment policy and other policies, in particular, energy and transport. Both trade unions and environmental NGOs agreed that additional measures would be needed to improve the quality of the environment and employment in the EU. Hence the desirability of ecological taxes, shifting the fiscal burden from labour towards environmental protection; and broader application of the polluter pays principle was also supported. NGOs also favoured the phasing out of all subsidies and state-aids that impacted negatively on the environment.

Trade unions, NGOs and eco-innovation industries highlighted the general absence of 'real pricing' for the use and exploitation of natural resources – taking into account the cost of remedial work to maintain the quality of the environment, for example – and urged the EU to promote greater resource and energy efficiency.

Stakeholders emphasised the importance of promoting research and technology in all areas. Eco-innovation companies claimed that there was a need for more intensive use of market-based instruments, to better promote clean technologies in trade and development policies. Partnerships with developing countries should also take into account the opportunity to encourage sustainable development and trade. Trade unions were of the opinion that market-based instruments such as the EU Emissions Trading Scheme should be designed to accommodate investments in clean technologies.

Stakeholders also called for a stronger EU role in the international environmental arena. For trade unions, this was seen as the way to develop global solutions to global problems, while not interfering with global competitiveness. They favoured an intensified dialogue on climate change between the EU and key third countries such as India and China. Environmental NGOs recognised the strong leadership shown by the EU in addressing environmental challenges. They called for the Member States to be more explicit and supportive of the EU role on environment policy development.

2. PROBLEM DEFINITION

The 6th EAP mid-term review addresses the issue of optimising the Community framework for action in the field of environment, to address the currently remaining environmental challenges efficiently and effectively during the rest of the 6th EAP period.

There are three main policy drivers. Firstly, the current state of the environment. Secondly, the policy context in which EU environmental policy is to be developed. Thirdly, identification of the deeper underlying problems, following on from the assessment of progress made so far.

2.1. The current state of the environment

Based on information from independent sources such as the European Environment Agency and Eurostat's Sustainable Development Indicators, the current state of the environment can be summarised as follows. The Annex to this Impact Assessment provides illustrative examples of trends and prospects in the four 6th EAP priority areas, based on statistical data and indicators and contains illustrative examples of actions taken so far in these four priority areas.

2.1.1. Climate change

One of the main causes of climate change is the large rise in concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Under the Kyoto Protocol, the EC has agreed to reduce its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 8 % by 2008–12, from base year levels. In 2004, total GHG emissions in the EU-156 were 1.0% lower than the base year levels. Total EU-25 (GHG) amounted to 4985 Mt CO2 equivalent in 2004, i.e. 7% below base year levels[13].

The most important greenhouse gas is CO2, accounting for 83% of total EU-25 greenhouse gas emissions in 2004. From 1990 to 2000 significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions were achieved, mainly as a result of fuel-switching from coal to gas, combined with an increased use of co-generation (heat and power), and slow economic growth. In contrast, between 2000 and 2004, annual greenhouse gas emissions from the EU-25 have increased by 0.6% on average, mainly due to electricity production and transport, combined with a slow-down in switching to lower-carbon fuel sources in power stations. Despite this rise, EU-15 emissions stood 0,9% lower than in the base year (mostly 1990) even though the EU-15 recorded economic growth of 32% over the same period.

Implementation of existing and additional proposed measures is projected to reduce EU-25 greenhouse gas emissions to 9.3% below 1990 levels by 2010 thus meeting the Kyoto targets. However, the longer-term EU targets for emissions and temperature rises are not expected to be met at the current rate of progress. Projections up to 2030 for the EU-15 show a 14% rise of greenhouse gas emissions above 1990 levels, which would significantly affect agricultural productivity, ecosystems, flood defences and human health, and economies as a whole.

The energy sector is the biggest contributor of CO2 emissions[14]. Under current energy policies, the International Energy Agency foresees a rise in global energy demand of at least 50% between 2005 and 2030[15], with 73% of the increase being satisfied by coal, gas and oil. In order to contribute to a global reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the EU has set an indicative target of 12% of energy to be provided from renewable sources (as a proportion of total energy use) and 21% of electricity, by 2010. The revised EU Sustainable Development Strategy envisages a target of 15% by 2015. Renewable energy currently provides 6% of the EU's total energy supply. Current projections are that renewable energy sources (as a proportion of total energy use in the EU) will reach only 7.5% by 2010. The Commission has recently proposed a target of 20% of renewable energy consumption by 2020 in the renewable energy roadmap for the 21st Century within the New Energy Policy for Europe.

Transport is the sector with the fastest growing greenhouse gas emissions, increases running at an average of 1% per year in the EU. Greenhouse gas emissions from transport increased in the EU by more than 22% between 1990 and 2003. The growth can be attributed mainly to increases in passenger road vehicles, freight road transport, aviation and maritime shipping[16].

2.1.2. Nature and biodiversity

In the EU, biodiversity loss is continuing at an unprecedented rate. The UN Millennium Ecosystem Assessment recently concluded that 60% of the 'ecosystem services' that support life on Earth (e.g. the provision, purification and regulation of water, fisheries, regulation of air quality, climate etc) are being degraded or used unsustainably. The principle causes of biodiversity loss (i.e. the permanent loss of species in excess of natural background rates of loss) are changes in habitats caused by human development. These include intensive agricultural and industrial production systems, construction, extractive industries, invasion of native animal and plant habitats by alien species, over-exploitation (fishing and hunting), industrial and traffic pollution, and climate change.

Since the 1950s, Europe has lost more than half of its wetlands and high-nature-value farmland. At the species level, 42% of Europe's native mammals, 43% of birds, 45% of butterflies, 30% of amphibians, 45% of reptiles and 52% of freshwater fish are threatened with extinction. Most major marine fish stocks are below safe biological limits for their survival. In 2003, 22% of total catches were outside safe biological limits, marking a substantial worsening compared to 2002 (8%). Some 800 plant species in Europe are at risk of global extinction. And there are unknown but potentially significant changes in lower life forms, including invertebrate and microbial species. This loss of species and decline in abundance is accompanied by significant loss of genetic diversity.

Progress towards meeting the 2010 target is uneven and in some sectors it is unlikely to be met[17]. For farmlands and mountain areas [18], the target is unlikely to be reached without additional efforts, and similarly for freshwater ecosystems although water quality of many rivers and lakes has improved. However, many freshwater species are threatened or at risk of extinction. But there is progress in Europe's forests , with sustainable forest management and the certification of products from sustainably-managed forests increasing. The assessment of forest biodiversity is on-going and new indicators of forest special patterns and forest fragmentation have been proposed in the EC. However, forest fires pose a major threat to EU forests and future trends in climate may worsen this situation. The loss of biodiversity in all European seas and along many coasts is considerable, due to continuing pollution from land-based sources, oil spills, the depletion of fish stocks, the fragility of threatened and endangered marine species and increased soil erosion along coastlines. There is some progress in conserving wetlands designated as sites of international importance, but biodiversity loss in Europe's wetlands is continuing, i.a. due to poor land-planning (e.g. urbanisation and transport development, tourism and recreation). Soil biodiversity is affected by all the degradation processes identified in the Soil Thematic Strategy. Such processes include: erosion (the EEA estimates that 115 million ha are affected by wind erosion); decline of soil organic matter (around 45% of soils in Europe have a low or very low organic matter content), which plays a major role in the carbon life cycle of the soil; compaction; salisation; landslides; sealing and contamination (it has been estimated that 3.5 million sites may be potentially contaminated, with 0.5 million sites being really contaminated and needing remediation).

2.1.3. Environment, Health and the Quality of Life

Environment has a significant effect on human health. OECD figures showed that 2-6% of premature European mortality is directly attributable to environmental factors, such as air pollution, noise, indoor environment, food-borne diseases and chemicals. In the EU-15, these risks are likely to be higher, contributing also to 5-8% of the total disease burden. The main health risks in the EU-15 are associated with outdoor and indoor air pollution, water and food-borne infectious diseases. Certain diseases are rapidly increasing, e.g. childhood asthma, and there is insufficient evaluation of the indirect impacts of poor air and water quality on health.

Recent estimates indicate that 20 million Europeans suffer from respiratory problems every day. The 'Clean Air For Europe' (CAFE) programme estimated that in the EU in 2000, about 350,000 were seriously affected due to air pollution caused by fine particulate matter. Current levels of ground-level ozone cause more than 20,000 premature deaths each year and Dangerous levels of 'smog', linked with high summer temperatures and nitrous oxide emissions, are on the rise[19]. Exceedances of particulate matter (PM10) limit values[20] are widespread. Indicators and forecasts reveal that even if current legislation is fully implemented, significant health concerns remain for the future.

Hazardous chemicals remain a matter of public concern, especially since the health consequences are not always fully known. There is an ever-increasing number of chemicals to be found in the human body (currently averaging over 300) and health impacts when different substances – which might be harmless by themselves – combine with others in the human body to produce potential 'cocktail effects', are poorly understood and poorly researched.

In the EU, water quality is expected to improve due to an expected significant reduction in the overall discharges of pollution from industry[21]. Water stress is expected to become more acute in certain areas of southern Europe, e.g. where drought conditions and water scarcity are risks.

2.1.4. Natural resources and wastes

In Europe, current production and consumption patterns are unsustainable: studies show that the total global use of natural resources is higher than the planet’s capacity to regenerate them. Europe has a high level of energy and materials resource consumption[22], the average material intensity – the quantity of resources required to produce consumables – is slightly less than in the USA, but twice that of Japan.

The use of materials and waste generation is closely linked with economic growth. While there has been substantial progress in reducing the environmental impact of waste disposal, the volume of waste still grows, roughly in parallel with increases in GDP. Progress on reducing the environmental impacts of waste is expected, as recently adopted EU legislation on waste management is being implemented. However, these policies only cover a limited proportion of all the waste generated. Estimates suggest that by 2020, waste volume will significantly increase compared to 2006 if current trends continue. Industrial processing, along with waste treatment, gives rise to about 25% of total EU greenhouse gas emissions.

Decoupling economic growth from negative environmental impacts – an overall objective of the 6th EAP - remains one of the biggest challenges for all policy areas.

2.2. The changed policy context

The policy context for the Community framework for action in the field of environment is determined – inter alia – by the EU Sustainable Development Strategy, the Lisbon Strategy and the Commission's Better Regulation policy.

2.2.1. The renewed EU Sustainable Development Strategy

The 6th EAP, which forms the basis for the environmental dimension of the EU Sustainable Development Strategy (EU SDS), states that "measures proposed and adopted in favour of the environment should be coherent with the objectives of the social and economic dimensions of sustainable development and vice versa"[23]. The recently renewed EU Sustainable Development Strategy sets out a single coherent strategy on how the EU will more effectively live up to its long-standing commitment to meet the challenges of sustainable development. It reaffirms the need for global solidarity and recognises the importance of strengthening our work with partners outside the EU, including rapidly developing countries which will have a significant impact on global sustainable development.

Recognising that the main challenge is "to gradually change our current unsustainable consumption and production patterns and the non-integrated approach to policy-making", the renewed Sustainable Development Strategy (SDS) lays the path for remedial action. Specifically, the SDS reconfirms that the EU is committed to a path of sustainable development and that in order to achieve sustainability goals, one important element is the need for greater co-operation between policy-makers (and implementers) at all stages of the policy cycle. Mutual supportiveness between economic, environmental and social policies needs to be considered by policy-makers earlier rather than later, if the aim is to move beyond rhetoric towards effective and profitable synergies. For example, there is scope for a renewed social dialogue in the field of environment. After all, environmental policies are prime contributors to safety in the workplace (e.g. chemicals) and to citizens' overall well-being.

The EU SDS sets out an approach to better policy-making promoting inter alia integration of economic social and environmental considerations so that they are coherent and mutually reinforce each other by making full use of instruments for better regulation, such as balanced impact assessments and stakeholder consultation.

The renewed SDS stresses that "the most appropriate economic instruments should be used to promote market transparency and price that reflect the real economic, social and environmental costs of products and services…". It recognises their potential, "…to reconcile environmental protection and smart economic growth and exploit win-win opportunities".

The renewed SDS reaffirms the need for global solidarity and recognises the importance of strengthening the EU's work with partners outside the EU, including the rapidly developing countries which will have a significant impact on global sustainable development.

2.2.2. The Lisbon Strategy

The Lisbon Strategy makes an essential contribution to the overarching objective of sustainable development focussing primarily on actions and measures aimed at increased competitiveness and economic growth and enhancing job creation. With the Community Lisbon Programme the EU will contribute to the overall economic and employment policy agenda by completing the internal market and by implementing common policies and activities that support and complement national policies. The Lisbon agenda focuses on boosting knowledge and innovation, making Europe a more attractive place to invest and work; and creating more and better jobs.

The 2006 Annual Progress Report on the Lisbon Strategy identified four priority action areas (i) investment in education, research and innovation; (ii) freeing up small and medium-sized enterprises; (iii) employment policies to get people into work; and (iv) guaranteeing a secure and sustainable energy supply.

2.2.3. The Commission's Better Regulation policy

In the context of the renewed Lisbon Strategy, refocusing on growth and jobs, the Commission announced its intention to launch a comprehensive initiative to ensure that the regulatory framework in the EU meets the requirements of the 21st century. In 2005, the Commission presented a Communication "Better Regulation for Growth and Jobs in the European Union" which builds on the Commission’s 2002 initiative for Better Regulation[24]. It "reinforces the way in which better regulation contributes to achieving growth and jobs, while continuing to take into account the social and environmental objectives and the benefits for citizens and national administrations in terms of improved governance". This means that, both for existing legislation and for new policy initiatives, the extent of the legislator’s intervention should remain proportionate to the political objectives pursued. The 2005 Communication proposes three key action lines:

- "further promoting the design and application of better regulation tools at the EU level, notably in so far as impact assessments and simplification are concerned.

- working more closely with Member States to ensure that better regulation principles are applied consistently throughout the EU by all regulators. Action at EU level alone will not be enough: the transposition of EU legislation by the Member States and national regulatory initiatives have a direct effect as well, not just on national administrations and on citizens but also on businesses, particularly SMEs, from across the Union.

- reinforcing the constructive dialogue between all regulators at the EU and national levels and with stakeholders".

Despite the fact that most of the Better Regulation tools are not new and that EU environment policy has been putting them into practice during the past four years, the 2005 Communication provides the impetus to give Better Regulation a new momentum.

2.3. Underlying problems

Although four years have elapsed since its adoption, it is too early to see significant results arising from the measures adopted under the 6th EAP. The assessment of progress made so far reveals three specific underlying problems which could hamper efficient and effective progress towards 6th EAP objectives over the coming period:

- poor integration of policies;

- the existing implementation gap; and

- insufficient international co-operation.

2.3.1. Poor integration of policies

Policy integration is a prerequisite for progress towards sustainable development. Other EU policies must take environment into consideration if environment and the linked human health objectives (clean air, adequate water quality etc) are to be attained. Integration is the main driver for ensuring mutual supportiveness between the economic, social and environmental dimensions of the Sustainable Development Strategy. Policy integration can usefully highlights ways to improve cost-effectiveness and can create useful win-win opportunities, for example by generating employment.

At EU level, the importance of integrating environment is recognised in Article 6 of the EC Treaty, which stipulates that, "environmental protection requirements must be integrated into the definition and implementation of the Community policies [...] in particular with a view to promoting sustainable development". Environmental integration was given an institutional boost in 1998 with the launch by the European Council of the 'Cardiff process', requiring different Council formations to develop strategies to this underpin integration.

In 2004, the Commission presented a working document taking stock of the 'Cardiff process'. It assessed how far policy-makers in other areas had taken environment on board and concluded that overall, the integration process had failed in terms of concrete improvements to the environment. The analysis shows a need for a significant upgrading in the effort to integrate environment into the energy, transport, development and employment policies over the coming period.

Processes recently set in place have led to improvements in several sectors, notably agriculture, which recognise the intimate interplay between the two policy areas. However, the pace of progress towards further environmental integration would be further boosted if all relevant sectors would implement commitments made over the past five years with incremental enthusiasm. This will be a difficult process: as many of the 'low hanging fruits' of integration have already been picked, future efforts to reverse persisting unsustainable trends will need to focus increasingly on structural reforms, which may generate tensions with established competences, and which generally take longer to bring about.

2.3.2. The existing implementation gap

Correct transposition of EU environmental law into the national laws of the Member States is a prerequisite to make sure that the laws have the desired impact on the environment when being implemented and enforced. Although the responsibility for implementation of EU environmental legislation lies primarily with the Member States, it is an essential task for the Commission, as guardian of the Treaty, to check that national measures meet the requirements of environmental directives.

The fact that EU environmental law constitutes one of the heaviest complaints and infringement workload of any EU policy area reveals an important gap between EU environmental law and its application in the Member States[25]. In 2005, the environment sector accounted for about one fourth of the total number of open cases concerning non-compliance with Community law under investigation by the Commission[26]. Out of the open cases, most concern nature protection (30%) followed by waste (18%), environment impact assessment (16%), water (11%) and air (8%). Italy and Spain have the highest number of infringement cases against them.

The following table gives an overview of open infringement cases against Member States on 31 December 2005:

[pic]

The 2005 Better Regulation Communication also stresses the importance of effective implementation of EU legislation at national level.

2.3.3. Insufficient international co-operation

Environmental problems do not stop at national borders and are becoming increasingly global. Globalisation – the way in which nations trade with each other and the way that transnational companies tend more and more to dominate trade-flows – bring about changes in the structure of industries, lifestyles and cultures. All these factors affect the way environmental policies are made today.

Policy (and business) decisions taken by the EU can impact negatively on the environment in third countries. An example would be decisions that lead to an increase in the outsourcing of resource-intensive production to developing countries where environmental safeguards are less stringent than those in the EU, or where production implies consumption of significant volumes of illegally logged timber. Conversely, EU environment policy also implies ambitious environmental standards which other countries need to meet to benefit from the EU as an export market. It is not always clear that these aspects of EU policy are sufficiently explored in the regulatory context, nor that they are adequately debated with stakeholders in developing countries which would be affected by them.

The EU acting alone cannot achieve its environmental protection aims but it can show the lead and maintain an open discussion to encourage and promote broader international support for actions that are in the global interest. This EU role – as a leading proponent of international co-operation – will play an increasingly decisive role in shaping the global agenda on key issues over the coming years. It will not only affect climate change and biodiversity, but will also shape attitudes among policy-makers in other domains whose proposals impact the developing world. In that context, the role of Impact Assessment in the Commission should broaden to include these wider aspects and encourage dialogue.

The recently revised EU Sustainable Development Strategy recognises the importance of the global dimension of EU policy-making. One of its overall objectives is to "actively promote sustainable development worldwide and ensure that the EU's internal and external policies are consistent with global sustainable development and its international commitments".

3. OBJECTIVES

The mid-term review of the 6th EAP has two objectives:

Objective 1

- to ensure that, for the remaining 6th EAP period (up to 2012), there is a Community framework for action in place, addressing the correct environmental challenges and priorities.

Objective 2

- to ensure that for the remaining 6th EAP period, initiatives based on the Community framework for action address the environmental challenges in the most efficient and effective way, in line with EU policies and strategies such as the renewed Sustainable Development Strategy and the Commission's Better Regulation policy.

4. MID-TERM REVIEW OPTIONS

Out of the many possible options to address the problems signalled in Section 2, three basic options have been considered:

Option 1

The first option would be the continuation of "business as usual" (no change option). Under this option, the Commission would keep the 6th EAP as a framework for environment policy-making until 2012. This option would not require any amending legislative action.

The Commission would, for the remaining 6th EAP period, present initiatives in order to further implement the 6th EAP. These initiatives would for example include measures to ensure the implementation of the seven Thematic Strategies, the completion of the international commitments under the Kyoto protocol, implementation of the Community's Biodiversity Communication, reviewing the legislative framework on industrial emissions, implementing the REACH (Chemicals) Regulation and revising the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control ('IPPC') Directive.

Option 2

The second option would also keep the 6th EAP as framework for environmental policy-making until 2012. This option would not require any amending legislative action either.

Under this option and without abandoning the actions foreseen in the 6th EAP, the Commission would devote particular attention to certain aspects of the 6th EAP in its future environmental policy-making to "ensure that environmental objectives, which should focus on the environmental outcomes to be achieved, are met by the most effective and appropriate means available", as required by Article 3 (3) of the 6th EAP.

The 6th EAP sets 10 strategic approaches for environmental policy-making:

- Development of new Community legislation and amendment of existing legislation, where appropriate (..)[27];

- Encouraging more effective implementation and enforcement of Community legislation on the environment (..)[28];

- Further efforts for integration of environmental protection requirements into all Community policies and actions (..)[29];

- (…) to internalise the negative as well as the positive impacts on the environment though the use of a blend of instruments, including market based and economic instruments (..)[30];

- Improving collaboration and partnership with enterprises and their representative bodies and involving the social partner, consumers and their organisations (..)[31];

- To help ensure that individual consumers, enterprises and public bodies in their role of purchasers are better informed about the processes and products in terms of their environmental impacts (..)[32];

- To support environmental integration in the financial sector (..)[33];

- To create a Community liability scheme (..)[34];

- To improve collaboration and partnership with consumer groups and NGOs and promote better understanding of and participation in environmental issues amongst European citizens (..)[35];

- To encourage and promote effective and sustainable use and management of land and sea (..)[36].

In addition, the 6th EAP:

- "promotes the adoption of policies and approaches that contribute to the achievement of sustainable development in countries which are candidates for accession ('Candidate Countries') building on the transposition and implementation of the acquis"[37];

- "stimulates the positive and constructive role of he European Union as leading partner in the protection of the global environment and in pursuit of a sustainable development"[38].

It states that "measure proposed and adopted in favour of the environment should be coherent with the objectives of the economic and social dimensions of sustainable development and vice versa"[39].

From among these perspectives, for the remaining 6th EAP period, the Commission would, under option 2, devote particular attention to:

- enhanced international co-operation;

- strengthening "Better Regulation" principles when developing new legislation and amending existing legislation;

- improved integration of policies;

- improved implementation and environmental information.

These four perspectives have been highlighted because they are in line with the changed policy framework referred to earlier and because they address the principle lacunae – as outlined in Section 1 – that stand in the way of more regular progress towards EU environment policy objectives at this time.

Option 3

The third option would be for the Commission to substantially revise the current 6th EAP. This would require legislative action, since the Commission would need to make a proposal for a new Community environment action programme which should be adopted by the European Parliament and the Council on the basis of a new co-decision procedure.

This new Community action programme would provide a new Community framework for action to address different environmental challenges than the ones currently covered by the 6th EAP for the period up to 2012. Future initiatives in the field of EU environmental policy will be based on this new Community framework for action.

5. ANALYSIS OF THE IMPACTS OF THE DIFFERENT OPTIONS

Given that the 6th EAP provides a framework for policy action rather than coming forward itself with policy proposals, and in line with the principle of proportionate analysis indicated in the Impact Assessment Guidelines, the following analysis is based on an appropriate level of generality, e.g. providing qualitative rather than extensive quantified data. It follows the suggested procedure for "Broad policy-defining documents"[40].

5.1. Analysis of the Mid-term Review Options

Option 1 – "business as usual"

Option 1 has the advantage that it avoids regulatory action. It keeps the 6th EAP as the framework for future Community action to address the remaining environmental challenges.

Drawbacks of option 1 are that it does not necessarily address the identified problems of poor integration, insufficient international co-operation and poor implementation of EU environment policies at national level. In addition, option 1 fails to adapt environment policy-making to the changed policy context that has arisen since the 6th EAP entered into force, notably in connection with the development of synergies between the environmental, economic and social dimension of sustainable development as well as the strengthening of "Better Regulation" principles in environment policy-making.

Consequently, while option 1 would be likely to create positive environment impacts through the development of initiatives addressing the main pressing environmental challenges, it is unlikely to encourage development of initiatives broad enough to create the necessary dynamic. For instance, option 1 does not adequately favour initiatives which would reduce administrative burden for enterprises through simplification of the regulatory environment or create jobs through the development of environmental policies focussing on material and energy efficiencies and eco-innovations.

Option 2 – reinvigorated perspectives of environmental policy-making

Like option 1, option 2 has the advantage that it avoids unnecessary regulatory action. It keeps the 6th EAP as framework for future Community action to address the remaining environmental challenges – much favoured by practically all stakeholders. In addition, option 2 focuses on four specific perspectives of environmental policy-making in order to address the problems identified in Section 1. Moreover, option 2 adapts future environmental policy-making to the changed policy context, notably the renewed EU Sustainable Development Strategy and focuses on further application of "Better Regulation" principles.

Consequently, option 2 is likely to create the required positive environment impacts through the development of initiatives addressing the main pressing environmental challenges, within the changed context. It is also likely that under option 2, initiatives would be developed which create the required synergies between environmental policies and the Sustainable Development Strategy to ensure efficient and effective implementation, and would be best-suited to accommodating the Commission's Better Regulation agenda.

The focus on strengthening international co-operation is aimed at enhancing the prospects for global environmental problems to receive global responses, most obviously in the field of climate change, but also biodiversity, trade in endangered species and emerging issues such as ship-dismantling and illegal waste shipments as well as sustainable forest management. Focus on "Better Regulation" principles should lead to the development of concrete EU environmental legislation with, if appropriate, clear targets and using market-based instruments if feasible. It will lead to a simplification of the existing regulatory framework, with a reduction of administrative burdens and costs. The improvements in implementation would not only have direct effects on environmental protection but would also influence competition by ensuring that all Member States respect the same rules and that economic operators are on equal footing in the internal market. Better integration of policies would encourage an enhancement of synergies between environmental, economic and social (and other key) policies. For instance, statistical evidence shows that improving resource and energy efficiency can be a more effective of increasing competitiveness than focussing on labour costs, since labour costs in manufacturing rarely constitute more than 20% of the total costs.

[pic]

Costs structure in selected sectors in Germany. Source: EEA Report 9/2005[41]

Whilst labour productivity has improved by more than 270% over the past four decades, energy and resource productivity only improved by 100% and 20% respectively. There is thus a potential to improve resource and energy efficiency through eco-innovation and other measures. Various studies have shown that on the average approximately 20% of the energy and material inputs can be saved. The drive towards further efficiency triggers innovation that itself results in further efficiencies with lower energy, waste and resource costs. For example, a study of 5 major international companies undertaking active greenhouse gas reduction policies revealed a total of €6 billion in savings[42]. A German study concluded that if energy and material savings were re-invested in research and development and engineering strategies, 2.3% of the GDP growth, an additional 750.000 jobs and decreased public spending on social welfare could be achieved[43].

[pic]

Table : Labour (GDP/working hours), material (GDP/domestic material consumption) and energy (GDP/total primary energy supply) productivity in the EU-15, 1960-2002. Source : EEA Report 9/2005[44]

Option 3 – new framework for Community environmental policies

Advantages of option 3 include a new Community framework for environmental policy that would be able to address the problems identified in Section 1 and make the necessary changes within the new policy context, notably the renewed Sustainable Development Strategy, the "Better Regulation" principles and other changed circumstances.

Option 3 would necessarily entail development of a new regulatory proposal to provide a new framework for Community environmental policy, which would open the debate on priorities additional to those the 6th EAP currently covers. The main drawback of option 3 is that this new framework would almost certainly arrive eventually at the conclusion that the 6th EAP already covers the most pressing environmental challenges – not least because these reflect the opinion of the majority of stakeholders – and so it would presage an unnecessary and fruitless debate. Moreover, since the current 6th EAP is just 4 years into its 10-year mandate, there is something to be said for continuity, given that its key principles remain valid and intact.

5.2. Specific initiatives based on the Community framework for action

Under all three options, further initiatives in the field of EU environment policy will be developed on the basis of a Community framework for action. In options 1 and 2 this framework will be the 6th EAP, in option 3, this would be a new framework.

Any new specific policy initiatives under the 6th EAP fall outside the scope of this current Impact Assessment. However, they will – as appropriate – be accompanied by separate Impact Assessments in due time, as they emerge.

The following list gives an illustrative overview of initiatives which could be proposed in the coming years:

2007

Climate Change

- Strategic EU Energy Review

- Commission Green Paper on market-based instruments

- Green Paper on post-2012 climate change options

- Communication on Carbon Capture and Geological Storage

- Communication on Clean Coal Technologies

- Communication on Green Public Procurement

- Revision of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme

- Follow-up measures to the revised CO2 and cars strategy, and in particular proposal for a legislative instrument to reduce CO2 from light duty vehicles (cars and vans)

- White paper on Climate Change Impact and Adaptation

- Communication on the review of the EU Strategy to reduceCO2 emissions from cars

- Action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from maritime transport

Nature and Biodiversity

- Developing additional Species Action Plans for threatened species, (e.g. covering wild birds and other species of Community interest)

- Under the 7th Research Framework Programme, development of new valuation methods to assess ecosystem services and development of modelling and monitoring processes to highlight the driving forces underlying the reduction / loss of biodiversity

- Implementing the Biodiversity Communication Action Plan

- Developing guidance documents to underpin the achievement of objectives specific to Natura 2000

- Development of the EU Water Initiative (contribution towards Millennium Development Goals )

- Communication on Reinforcing the Community Civil Protection Mechanism, in particular the Monitoring and Information Centre 'MIC'

- Communication on Droughts and water scarcity

- Proposal on Additional Legislative Options to Combat Illegal Logging and Associated Trade

- Continue negotiations of FLEGT (Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade) Voluntary Partnership Agreements with third countries

- EU Maritime Strategy

Environment, Health and the Quality of Life

- Mid-term review of the Environment and Health Action Plan and EU pilot project on Human Bio-monitoring

- Work Programme for the Common Implementation for the Water Framework Directive 2007-2009

- Review and evaluation of the legislative framework for industrial emissions

- NEC Directive revision

- Establish further noise standards

- Proposal establishing minimum thresholds for adventitious or technically unavoidable traces of authorised GMO seeds in non GM seed lots

- Commission proposal for a Regulation on Euro VI standards for heavy-duty vehicles

- Community Implementation Plan on Persistent Organic Pollutants

- Review of Directive 96/61/EC and related legislation on industrial emissions

- Proposal to amend Directive 98/70 on fuel quality

Natural Resources and Wastes

- Proposal for simplification of the Directives on waste from titanium dioxide production

- Proposal for revision of the Sewage Sludge directive 86/278/EEC

- Commission Communication on a Sustainable Production and Consumption action plan

- Communication on by-products and waste

- Report on the implementation of the Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive

- International Panel on Sustainable use of natural resources

- Review of EMAS/Ecolabel schemes

2008

Climate Change

- Proposal for a model for the assessment of all external costs of transport to serve as the basis for future calculations of infrastructure charges

- Proposal for a Directive on renewable heating and cooling

- Revision of Decision No 280/2004/EC concerning a mechanism for monitoring Community greenhouse gas emissions and for implementing the Kyoto Protocol

Nature and Biodiversity

- Proposal for a comprehensive EU strategy on reducing the impacts of invasive alien species on EU biodiversity

- Communication on further steps towards the Community framework for co-operation in the field of accidental or deliberate marine pollution

Environment, Health and the Quality of Life

- Establish test methods and criteria for identifying endocrine disrupters

- Start of the operations of the European Chemical Agency in Helsinki

- Review of the Ozone Depleting Substance Regulation

- Completion of the review of all active substances used in plant protection products within the EU

Natural Resources and Wastes

- Implementation of measures announced in the Action Plan on Sustainable Production and Consumption, including a legislative proposal on eco-design of the most environmentally harmful products

- Review of the Directive on Restrictions on the use of Hazardous Substances in electrical and electronic equipment 2002/95/EC and of the Directive on waste from electrical and electronic equipment 2002/96/EC

2009

Climate Change

- A major future-oriented programme for green propulsion and energy efficiency in transport

- Longer term: Promotion of research, demonstration and market introduction of new technologies for reducing energy use and greenhouse gas emissions such as optimised engines and power trains, intelligent vehicle energy management systems including hybrids, fuel cell and hydrogen powered vehicles and the associated EU-wide infrastructure

Nature and Biodiversity

- Review of the EU River basin management Plans.

Environment, Health and Quality of life

- Review of existing active substances used in biocidal products

- Review on implementation of the environmental noise Directive 2002/49/EC

- Review of the Biocides Directive

Natural Resources and Wastes

- Implementation of measures announced in the Action Plan on Sustainable Production and Consumption

6. COMPARING THE MID-TERM REVIEW OPTIONS

Option 3 was discarded at an early stage.

The third option would create a completely new Community framework for environment policy, possibly with new aims, objectives and new priority actions. This option would be desirable if the current state of the environment on the one hand, and an evaluation of the impacts of the measures already being proposed on the other would indicate that a change in the objectives and priorities had become necessary. That is not the case. Both the assessment on the state of the environment as well as the stakeholders' opinions confirmed that the objectives and priority areas of the 6th EAP are valid now and are likely to remain so for until 2012.

Consequently, the additional work entailed in option 3 is not outweighed by any potential benefits as political stability is needed.

Option 1 has also been rejected.

Stakeholder opinion militates in favour of retaining the 6th EAP as the appropriate framework for future EU environment policy action. The first option is consistent with this conclusion, since it supports the continuity of the EAP.

On the other hand, option 1 fails to provide scope to bring the EU environment policy framework into line with the current and likely future policy context. Environmental policy stands likely to be less cost-effective and less consonant with the economic and social dimensions of sustainable development.

The "business as usual" option, is thus discarded it does not fully exploit the synergies between environmental protection, economic growth and job creation and the new Better Regulation instruments.

Option 2 has been retained.

Option 2 would keep the 6th EAP as framework for action and is thus coherent with the state of the environment and stakeholder opinion. However, within this framework for action, it favours added focus on four specific perspectives for environment policy-making, in order to address the underlying problems and the changed policy context, while maximising the potential for achievement of environment policy objectives. It is likely to lead to a high level of environmental protection at lower cost and/or with added accompanying economic/social benefits.

Option 2 has thus been selected as the most effective and efficient option for environmental policy-making for the remaining period of the 6th EAP.

The following table summarises the comparison of the policy options in terms of their effectiveness, efficiency and consistency:

Effectiveness | Efficiency | Consistency |

Option 1 – "business as usual" | +/- The "business as usual" option would be in line with the first objective identified in Section 3, since the 6th EAP provides the correct framework for future action. However, under the "business as usual" option, the second objective identified in Section 3 may not be achieved, since initiatives which will be developed to address the remaining environmental challenges may not address these challenges in the most efficient and effective way. | +/- It is doubtful whether synergies will be fully explored under this option. | - Under this option it is unlikely that initiatives will be developed which will limit trade-offs across the environmental, economic and social domain, since initiatives that will be developed will mostly focus on further implementation of the 6th EAP actions. |

Option 2 - implementation of the 6th EAP with reinvigorated perspectives | + Option 2 keeps the 6th EAP as the framework for action and therefore corresponds to the first objective. It also achieves the second objective as the enhanced perspectives could be used to develop initiatives which implement the 6th EAP actions in the most efficient and effective way. | + Without a new legislative proposal, this option reinvigorates existing perspectives for environmental policy-making in order to fully exploit the synergies with other policies and address underlying problems. | + The use of enhanced perspectives of this option on the basis of which future initiatives will be developed are likely to limit trade-offs across the economic, social and environmental domain |

Option 3- a new legislative proposal to amend the 6th EAP framework for action | - Option 3 would not be in line with the first objective since the 6th EAP already provides the correct framework for future action. | -/- The presentation of a new legislative proposal would require the use of resources at inter-institutional level which would not be justified since there is no need to formally amend the 6th EAP. | + The new legislative proposal of this option could to limit trade-offs across the economic, social and environmental domain |

7. MONITORING AND EVALUATION

Monitoring and evaluation are key elements to measure the success of the implementation of the 6th EAP.

Indicators are essential to monitoring and evaluating progress towards achieving the 6th EAP objectives. The EEA and Eurostat have already developed a comprehensive set of indicators. The Commission has established through the agreement of DG ENV, DG JRC, DG ESTAT and the EEA a network of Environmental Data Centres for the provision of timely and accurate information on the state of the environment. The Commission is committed to further development of indicators in specific areas of environment, notably to monitor progress in halting biodiversity loss and towards a more sustainable use of natural resources.

As many initiatives implementing the 6th EAP have only been adopted at Community level recently, it is too soon to see the final results at this stage. A final assessment will be made at the end of the programme in 2012, in line with Article 11 of 6th EAP.

ANNEX Progress with the implementation of the 6 th EAP - Environmental trends and prospects in the four priority areas

1. INTRODUCTION

This Annex to the Impact Assessment accompanying the Commission's Communication concerning the mid-term review of the Sixth Community Environment Action Programme, illustrates progress made in each of 6th EAP priority areas (climate change; nature and biodiversity; environment, health and the quality of life; natural resources and waste) based on various available statistics, data and indicators, mainly but not exclusively from the European Environmental Agency and Eurostat.

In total, the 6th EAP identifies 156 actions are to be taken to reach its overall goal. Out of the 156 actions, 54% have an identifiable end date and/or a defined 'deliverable'. The other 46% will become – or are already – a structural part of the Commission's environment policy-making practices. More than 70% of the actions imply the initiation of research on identified issues or the elaboration of new policies. A wide range of different actors at international, European, national, regional and local level are involved in implementing the 6th EAP actions. In the new Seventh Research Framework Programme (FP7) of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities the environment including climate change composes a separate theme within the Cooperation Specific Programme with a budget of about €1.9 billion for the period from 2007 to 2013. The objectives of the environmental research theme within FP7 are the sustainable management of the environment and its resources through advancing our knowledge of the interactions between the climate, biosphere, ecosystems and human activities, and developing new technologies, tools and services, in order to address in an integrated way global environmental issues. Emphasis will be put on: the prediction of climate, ecological, earth and ocean systems changes; on tools and on technologies for monitoring, prevention, mitigation of and adaptation to environmental pressures and risks, including on health, as well as for the sustainability of the natural and man-made environment. Without aiming to be exhaustive, this Annex also illustrates actions taken at EU level in each of the 6th EAP priority areas.

2. CLIMATE CHANGE

2.1. Illustrative Trends and prospects

Climate change is a problem which has impacts on a very long time horizon, but requires urgent on the very short term. The Commission's communication to the Gothenburg European Council in 2001 identified climate change as one of the main threats to sustainable development and emphasised the need for increased use of "clean" energy and clear action to reduce energy demand[45].

[pic]

The graph below shows the increase in temperature since the industrial revolution and further increases over the coming century due to projected growth of global greenhouse gas emissions as reported in the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC[46]. This report also demonstrated what the reasons for concern are of the potential temperature increases over the coming century. On the basis of earlier similar results on the potential impacts of climate change from the IPCC, the European Council had already concluded that the maximum ‘safe’ level of increases in the earth’s average temperature above pre-industrial era should be limited to 2°C. On 10 March 2005 the Environmental Council concluded that recent research indicates that global greenhouse gas emissions will be required to peak within 2 decades, followed by substantial reductions in the order of at least 15% and perhaps by as much as 50% by 2050 compared to 1990 levels in order to keep the 2ºC objective in reach.

[pic]

Table : Global temperature rise in °C from the 1990 value. Source : Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2001[47]

As regards impacts for the EU, present projections for 2100 indicate that temperatures in Europe will have risen by between 2 and 6.3ºC above 1990 levels. It is estimated that the current rise in sea level of 0.8–3.0 mm/year will continue and intensify by 2.2 to 4.4 times the present values. Over the last 30 years, the extent of Arctic sea ice has decreased by circa 7% and the ice has thinned by about 40%, whereas between 1850 and 1980, Alpine glaciers lost approximately a third of their area and half of their mass, a trend that is continuing[48].

Even if greenhouse gases emissions were halted today, these changes would continue for many decades - in the case of sea level for centuries -, because of time lags in the response of climatic and oceanic systems to changes in the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases. These impacts will have consequences for all economic sectors in Europe. Even climate related events occurring elsewhere in the world would influence Europe's economy. The need for adaptation to the adverse immediate and future impacts of climate change is paramount, and is now also a priority for the European Commission, as indicated in the Commission's Communication Winning the Battle Against Global Climate Change[49].

[pic]

Table: Rise in greenhouse gas emissions (in ppm CO2 equivalent). Source : Climate change 2001: The scientific basis, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

In the short term, the EU needs to attain the reduction commitments under the Kyoto Protocol. The EU-15 agreed to an 8% reduction in its greenhouse gas emissions by 2008-2012, compared with 1990[50]. Individual targets for the EU-15 have been agreed under the EU burden sharing agreement[51].

From 1990 to 2000, significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions were achieved through restructuring of energy sectors that led to efficiency improvements and a shift into energy sources with a lower carbon content. These shifts where most markedly in the new Members States, the new federal states in Germany and the United Kingdom[52]. In 2004, EU-15 emissions were 0,6 % below 1990, for the EU -25 they were 4,8 % below 1990 levels. Between 2000 and 2004, greenhouse gas emissions from the EU-15 have increased. For instance in 2003-2004 they increased with 0,4%, mainly as a result of higher CO2 emissions from road transport, iron and steel production and oil refining and higher HFCs emissions from refrigeration and air conditioning[53].

[pic]

Table: EU-15 total greenhouse gas emissions as a percentage of the base year emissions. Source : EUROSTAT 2005[54].

[pic] Table : EU-15 Greenhouse gas emissions, Source : EEA Technical report No 6/2006 Annual European Community greenhouse gas inventory 1990–2004 and inventory report 2006 Submission to the UNFCCC Secretariat

In 2004, the total greenhouse gas emissions in the EU-15 amounted to 4227Mt CO2 equivalent. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is by far the most important greenhouse gas, accounting for about 83% of the total greenhouse gas emissions. The main source of CO2 emissions is the burning of fossil fuels. All sectors of the economy contribute in different degrees to greenhouse gas emissions. The largest sets of emissions come from energy production (33% in the EU-25), followed by the transport sector (19.3% in the EU-25).

[pic]

Table : Greenhouse gas emissions by sector in 2003, EU-25, EU-15 and EU-10. Source : EEA 2006[55]

Measures to reduce greenhouse gases should focus on increasing the share of low carbon sources or even carbon free such as renewables and increase overall energy efficiency.-. The EU has set as overall renewable electricity target of 22% of the gross electricity consumption by 2010[56].

In 2003, in the EU-25, the share of electricity generated from renewable energy sources was 12.7%. Renewable energy sources used to generate electricity were mainly hydropower (75%), biomass (13%) and wind power (10%).

[pic]

Table : EU-25 electricity generated from renewable energy source (TWh and as a percentage share of gross national electricity consumption). Source : EUROSTAT 2005[57]

Energy efficiency measures are crucial to achieve the long-term climate change commitments. Recent research by the International Energy Agency has identified energy efficiency as the single most important measure to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions[58]. Energy efficiency measures can change the total energy intensity, which identifies how much energy is used to produce one unit of economic output and to what extent there is a decoupling between energy consumption and economic growth. Decoupling takes places when the energy consumption growth is less than that of the economic (GDP) growth[59].

While energy intensity has steadily decreased in the EU by 1.8% per year (party due to energy efficiency efforts), in 2003, energy intensity increased compared to the previous year.

[pic]

Table: Gross inland consumption of energy in kg oil equivalent per €1000 GDP. Source : European Commission EU environmental-related indicators 2006[60]

The transport sector accounts for more than 30% of final energy consumption in the EU. Transport policy is closely linked to energy policy, the two sharing connected objectives:e.g. lowering CO2 emissions and reducing EU dependency on imported fossil fuels[61]. The transport sector is responsible for 19% of the total greenhouse gas emissions in the EU-25 in 2003. Road transport accounts for 84% of the transport-related CO2 emissions. One measure to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions from transport is the promotion of a wider use of cleaner and/or alternative fuels, such as biofuels. The share of biofuels in the EU-25 was less than 0.6% in 2003. The graph below shows the share of biofuels in overall fuel consumption. [pic]

Table: Share of biofuels in total fuel consumption of transport. Source : EUROSTAT 2005[62]

The 6th EAP requires action to be taken to decouple economic growth and the transport demand[63]. The graphs below show that both passenger and freight transport have grown over the past years almost in parallel with GDP[64].

[pic]

[pic]

Table: Volume of passenger and freight transport (in tonne-km) and GDP (constant in 1995 euro) for the EU-25 (index 1995=100). Source : EEA 2005[65].

Given that the demand for transport services is unlikely to fall in the foreseeable future, continued improvements in the efficiency of transport will be needed to decouple energy consumption by transport from economic growth. The graph below shows that currently, both the energy consumption of transport and economic growth grow approximately at the same rate.

[pic]

Table: Energy consumption of transport and GDP in the EU-25 (index 1995=100). Source : EUROSTAT 2005[66]

2.2. Illustrative examples of actions taken so far

International Climate Change Commitments

During the past four years, the EU has made significant progress in its efforts to address climate change, being responsible for 14% of the global greenhouse gas emissions. The Kyoto Protocol [67] entered into force in 2005 setting out targets to be achieved in the period 2008-2012. Under the Kyoto Protocol, EU-15 Member States accepted an 8% reduction target at Kyoto and have agreed to a burden-sharing agreement among themselves. All new EU-10 have ratified the Kyoto Protocol[68] and 8 have committed to reduce their emissions by 6-8%. The EU established a monitoring system of greenhouse gas emissions[69]. At international level, EU's has been one of the leading forces that ensured that the Kyoto Protocol did enter into force.

The EU's main cross-cutting measure for reducing greenhouse gases is the emissions trading system , the first international trading system for greenhouse gas emissions which began operating on 1 January 2005 and regulates the emissions of CO2 of most large point sources in the EU[70]. At national level, Member States have established national allocation plans for the period 2005-2007 which gives each installation in the scheme permission to emit a number of CO² that corresponds to the number of allowances received. In 2006 Member States established the National Allocation Plans for the period 2008-2012 and could apply to include emissions of other types of greenhouse gasses. Also in 2006 a revision process started to ensure that the emission trading system is ready as a future policy instrument for the period when the actual reduction commitments under the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol end, i.e. 2012. Following an invitation of the European Council, the Commission will consider a possible extension of the ETS to land use, land use change, forestry and surface transport.

In 2005, the Commission reported on the measures taken under the first European Climate Change Programme (ECCP) which started in 2000. The report covered Directives on emissions trading, the promotion of biofuels, renewable energy, energy performance of buildings, co-generation, landfill of waste and a Communication regarding vehicle taxation. It noted that 35 measures were already in force and that others were in the pipeline. It concluded that the EU has made "good progress" and that further progress depended on the "speed and thoroughness of the implementation by Member States of Community measures and domestic measures"[71].

The Second Phase of the European Climate Change Programme was launched in 2005 to prepare future policy actions, with 5 working groups: ECCP review, Impact and Adaptation, Carbon Capture and Storage, Aviation, CO2 and cars. The Communication, "Winning the Battle Against Climate Change", inter alia, outlined key elements for the EU's post-2012 strategy. It highlighted the need for broader participation by countries and sectors not already subject to emissions reductions, the development of low-carbon technologies, the continued and expanded use of market mechanisms, and the need to adapt to the expected impacts of climate change.

Reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the energy sector

In 2004, the Commission presented a Communication on the share of renewable energy in the EU[72], following the requirements of the Directive on renewable energy sources for electricity production ('RES-E Directive')[73]. It concluded that the 2010 target to generate 21% of electricity from renewable energy by 2010 will only be met by full implementation of the legal framework by Member States together with complementary measures geared to national conditions. An EU Action Plan to promote all forms of biomass was launched in December 2005[74].

In 2007, the Commission presented a comprehensive package of measures to establish a new Energy Policy for Europe to combat climate change and boost the EU's energy security and competitiveness. The package of proposals set a series of ambitious targets on greenhouse gas emissions renewable energy (including biofuels), and energy efficiency and aims to create a true internal market for energy and strengthen effective regulation. The Commission believes that when an international agreement is reached on the post-2012 framework this should lead to a 30% cut in emissions from developed countries by 2020. To further underline its commitment the Commission proposed that the European Union commits now to cut greenhouse gas emissions by at least 20% by 2020, in particular through energy measures. This approach was supported by the meeting of the European Council at its meeting on 9 March 2007.

Furthermore, the Commission presented an EU strategy for biofuels , proposing policies beyond 2010, in early 2006[75]. So far, no specific action has been taken to prevent and reduce methane emissions from energy production and distribution.

On subsidies , the Commission has published a staff working paper, identifying public aid granted to different energy production sources[76]. In addition, the Commission is reviewing the state aid guidelines for environmental purposes.

On the promotion of energy efficiency , the EU has adopted three recent Directives to promote more efficient energy consumption[77]. The Green Paper on energy efficiency or "Doing more with less"[78] the Green Paper "A European Strategy for Sustainable, Competitive and Secure Energy"[79] and the Communication and Action Plan for energy efficiency[80] are the main policy drivers in this field for the future.

The Intelligent Energy – Europe (IEE) Programme, which entered into force on 3 July 2002 is the most important framework at EU level for co-financing EU renewable energy projects and the setting up of local and regional energy agencies, with a total budget of €250 million (2003-2006). For 2007-2013, the Commission decided to make it part of the new Competitiveness and Innovation Programme and to almost double the budget to €780 million.

The EU Environmental Technology Action Plan (ETAP), launched in January 2004 to foster the market for clean technologies, covers a spectrum of actions to promote eco-innovation, take-up of environmental technologies and their deployment in the service of better environmental performance. Almost all Member States have submitted national ETAP road-maps .

Implementation of ETAP will also be supported by new money under the EU's 2007-2013 budget. Under the Competitiveness and Innovation Programme €520 million has been earmarked for eco-innovation.

R&D and demonstration activities for Sustainable energy accounted for 810 M Euros in the sixth framework Programme for RTD. In the new Framework Programme, environment has been created as a separate heading and the Commission has proposed a 90% increase in funding available for environmental research (over €2.5 billion for the period 2007 to 2013). Similarly the Energy part has a budget of 2.3 billion euros to support the transition to a sustainable energy system

Reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the transport sector

In 2003, a Directive on the promotion of the use of biofuels or other renewable fuels for transport was adopted[81].

On 27 September 2005, the Commission adopted a Communication outlining plans to reduce the impact of aviation on climate change. The Communication recommends that aviation emissions should be included in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme and work on this has begun[82]. This is part of a comprehensive approach which includes research into cleaner air transport, better air traffic management and the removal of legal barriers to taxing aircraft fuel. With respect to the maritime sector , the Commission is preparing specific actions with respect to reducing greenhouse gases[83].

In order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles , the Commission has adopted a strategy to achieve by 2010 at the latest - an average CO2 emission figure of 120 g/km for all new passenger cars marketed in the Union. The main element is a 'voluntary agreement' by car producers to limit the average CO2 emissions from new cars to 140 g/km by 2008-2009. At present, this target seems unlikely to be met and alterative strategies to meet the same targets are under consideration. Secondly, EU legislation requires mandatory labelling and provision of consumer information at the point of sale about each car's fuel economy and CO2 emissions. As a third element, the Commission has proposed legislation that would require Member States levying car registration taxes and /or circulation taxes to relate at least 50% of the tax to the level of a vehicle's CO2 emissions[84]. The proposed Directive on green public procurement may also affect public sector demand for cleaner transport[85].

Other cross-cutting instruments

Council Directive 2003/96/EC restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity sets out a framework for setting minimum rates of duty for the various energy products covered.

Council Directive 2003/96/EC restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity extended the scope of Community excise legislation from mineral oils to almost all energy products (in particular coal, natural gas) and to electricity, thus creating a framework for efficient energy consumption across the economy, including many of the production processes, households and transport sectors. By taxing hydrocarbons, the Directive creates a rather comprehensive incentive framework for renewables in heating. Up to know, the Directive has served as the key instrument of national efforts to support take up of biofuels in transport.

There are several environmental directives that have an effect on the greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture, which have been significantly reduced between 1990 and 2004, by 13%. The main environmental initiatives relevant for climate change mitigation are the Nitrates Directive, the Soil Framework Directive, the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive and the National Emission Ceiling Directive. The link is mainly due to a more appropriate handling and use of chemical fertilisers and animal manure as well as farming practices increasing the carbon storage in the soil. In addition, the successive CAP reforms since 1990 have also contributed to this trend by the introduction of set-aside, agri-environmental programmes aiming at extensification and cross-compliance (compulsory requirements on which farm payments are conditioned).

3. NATURE AND BIODIVERSITY

3.1. Illustrative trends and prospects

The 6th EAP calls for halting of the loss of biodiversity in the EU by 2010, which means that loss of habitats (and of genetic diversity within species) must be curtailed and that threatened species should obtain a more secure survival status[86].

Worldwide, biodiversity loss is continuing at an unprecedented rate. Since the late 1970s, an area of tropical rain forest larger than the EU has been destroyed, mainly replaced by cash-crops such as palm oil and soy-bean plantations and for cattle ranching. With their habitats gone, there has been a commensurate loss of forest-dwelling biodiversity. Other diverse ecosystems, such as wetlands, islands, temperate forests, mangroves and coral reefs are under frequent and continuous threat. Import of resources to Europe and tourism of Europeans have contributed to these problems

The second Global Biodiversity Outlook demonstrated that an unprecedented effort would be needed to achieve the global target to significantly reduce the rate of biodiversity loss by 2010.

[pic]

The preceding table gives an overview of the state of indicator development and data. Several indicators have sufficient resolution to determine a change in the rate of biodiversity loss by 2010 including habitat change in certain types of ecosystems, trends in abundance and distribution of selected species, the status of threatened species, the Marine Trophic Index and nitrogen deposition. Others may be developed for use by 2010. Source: COP Convention on Biological Diversity, UNEP Summary of the Second Global Biodiversity Outlook, March 2006.

Annexes to the EU Birds and Habitat Directives and the Bern Convention contains lists of globally threatened species. According to the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, 147 vertebrate (mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians and fish), and 310 invertebrate species (crustaceans, insects and molluscs) in the EU-25 are considered to be globally threatened. The following indicator gives the percentage of IUCN threatened species not p