Annex 2

Linkages of environment policy issues

The importance of coherence is already recognised

The importance of coherence and linkages is regularly recognised in strategic documents. Europe 2020, the EU's growth strategy for the coming decade, has the aim for the EU to become a smart, sustainable and inclusive economy. These three mutually reinforcing priorities are to help the EU and the Member States deliver high levels of employment, productivity and social cohesion. Concretely, under this strategy the Union has set five ambitious objectives - on employment, innovation, education, social inclusion and climate/energy - to be reached by 2020.

Delivering Europe 2020 are a number of strategic documents, different in status and timescales, either ongoing or under discussion that relate to the EU's environment. They include: the Flagship Initiative on a Resource Efficient Europe under the Europe 2020 Strategy; the 2020 EU Biodiversity Strategy; the forthcoming Blueprint to safeguard Europe's water; Roadmap for moving to a low-carbon economy in 2050. On top of these, sectoral processes such as the 2014-2020 Multi-Annual Financial Framework (MFF) and reforms in sectoral policies like agriculture (legislative proposals for 2014-2020 Common Agricultural Policy) or transport (Transport White Paper), knowingly affect the context and scope for environmental policy action to 2020 and beyond.

This policy framework has been developed by the EU as a comprehensive body of environmental legislation with the objective of limiting impacts and pressures on the environment.

In this context, the 7EAP is useful in providing an overarching strategic framework that gives overall orientation and guidance to help frame the future development of EU policies, in all areas. The 7EAP can help tackle links between these three main objectives (ecosystem resilience, resource efficiency and human health and well-being), for example through:

· Developing, for agriculture, a perspective on resource efficiency in terms of nutrients, energy, chemical inputs, water and land take

· Developing, for chemicals, a perspective on risk assessment, reducing impacts on the environment (pharmaceuticals), and application of the precautionary principle (endocrine disrupting substances, nanomaterials etc.)

· Developing an integral perspective on consumption, marketing and labelling of products, and waste reduction through a reduce, reuse, recycle, resource virtual cycle

Green economy

The concept of a green economy recognises that ecosystems, the economy and human well-being (and the respective types of natural, produced, social and human capital) are intrinsically linked (Figure 1).

Figure 1 - The ‘green economy’ concept in the context of sustainable development

Assessment of whether interlinkages are adequately addressed

There have clearly been considerable successes in terms of addressing interlinkages and 'mainstreaming' environment into other policy areas. However, there are also criticisms of stakeholders that the current policy framework does not adequately address inter-linkages and those omissions in the current and planned strategic documents, meaning there is still not a clear and coherent long-term vision for EU environmental policy.

In particular, that developed separately, many of the policies and proposals overlap thematically and address multiple environmental problems and pressures in different policy areas, they present the risk of having conflicting agendas and not taking into account synergies and trade-offs within and between policy areas. A key question in the design of the 7th EAP thus concerns these existing inter-linkages, overlaps and omissions.

Whilst the European Commission does not necessarily accept the criticism, for example, the independent Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP), has provided an assessment of the degree to which some of the most relevant sectoral strategies (namely agriculture, fisheries, cohesion, energy & transport and industry) at the EU level formally address environmental policy issues developed under the 6th EAP (climate change, biodiversity, natural resource use and environment & health). The nature and strength of the link is defined as follows:

Strong link: the proposal takes into account the environmental issue concerned by explicitly referring to it and by concrete policy actions. A strong link does not imply that the measures are considered sufficient or guarantee an effective outcome though. Moderate link: the proposal takes into account the environmental issue by explicitly referring to it, but proposed actions are not exhaustive/too weak to influence the environmental trend. Weak link: the proposal takes into account the environmental issue and proposes specific actions to a limited degree or insufficiently. Very weak link: the proposal makes a formal recognition of the environmental issue but does not propose any specific action. No link: the proposal does not refer to the environmental issue.

Table: How sectoral policy proposals address major environmental issues

|| || Climate change || Biodiversity || Natural resource Use || Environment & Health

Agriculture || Legislative Proposals for 2014-2020 Common Agricultural Policy || Strong link || Moderate link || Moderate link || Very weak link

Fisheries || Legislative Proposals for 2014-2020 Common Fisheries Policy || No link || Moderate link || Strong link || Very weak link

Cohesion Policy || Legislative Proposals for 2014-2020 Cohesion Policy || Moderate link || Weak link || Weak link || No link

Energy and transport || Transport White Paper || Strong link || No link || Moderate link || Moderate link

Energy 2020 Strategy || Strong link || Very weak link || Strong link || Very weak link

Legislative proposal for Connecting Europe Facility || Moderate link || No link || Very weak link || No link

Industry || Flagship Initiative, Reinforcing competitiveness || Very weak link || No link || Moderate link || Very weak link

Examples of Interlinkages

The links between specific objectives 1-3 can be considered further through a resource use-efficiency lens. So, for example, the natural resources that are most directly relevant to human health and well-being can be roughly classified into four major categories from an economic perspective: food resources, water resources, energy resources and (other) material resources. Material resources are normally defined as covering biomass, metals, non-metallic minerals, and fossil fuels. In the context of human well-being it is more relevant to consider materials for housing and transport (e.g. sand, gravel, wood and metals), as well as other materials in day to day use especially chemicals, and upcoming materials likely to come into day-to-day use more and more such as nano-materials.

Figure 2 – Key natural resources to underpin human health and well-being

The different resources are heavily inter-linked. For example, food production relies on energy and water, and therefore cannot be considered in isolation. All four categories of resource requirement depend on the availability of land to support the resource use, i.e. food and (bio-)energy production requires agricultural land, water resource availability is affected by land cover and use, and material resource requirements and the development of economic activities will place an additional demand on land for housing, transport infrastructure and extraction of resources.

These multiple resource requirements thus often call for trade-offs to be accounted for between different types of uses for a given land area or for limited resources. Foot-print issues come into play where production processes are outsourced to areas outside Europe, again with indirect impacts on human well-being through global environmental feed-backs.

When sectoral policy proposals are considered against this background and the problem definition in Section 2, it shows that:

Regarding the EU's ecological and climate resilience through our natural capital:

There is significant integration of environment in CAP with measures such as agri-environment payments and a new Forest Strategy planned for 2013 for a sustainable forest management. The CAP 2014-2020 includes an "integration scenario" where the greening is a central element, with a compulsory green payment composed of environmental measures such as permanent grassland or crop diversification. An ecosystem-based approach also prevails in the revision of the CFP where it has been given a greater importance in fisheries management. Biodiversity still stands weaker though in most of the sectoral policy proposals. Anticipating critical thresholds in pressures on ecosystems is a challenge at European and global levels. Proposals, mainly in the energy and transport sectors, aim at improving their contribution to a low-carbon economy.

Regarding a single market for sustainable, low-carbon growth, improving resource-efficiency and economic competitiveness:

The mitigation of GHG emissions is well established as a cross-cutting policy objective in sectoral strategies. For instance proposals have been put forward to foster carbon sequestration and promote agro-ecological restoration in the current debate on the reform of the CAP. The Transport White Paper also sets goals on emissions reduction through the achievement of a CO2-free city logistics in major urban centres by 2030, for instance. Resource use and resource efficiency are addressed in all strategic documents. To name one, the Cohesion Policy review includes in its new thematic objectives supporting the shift towards a low-carbon economy in all sectors and promoting resource efficiency. Many proposals focus on economic (safety of supply, competitiveness) as well as environmental (reducing environmental impacts) sustainability. Lifecycle approaches to doing business and consuming in a circular economy are still lacking.

Regarding an environment conducive to better human health and well being:

Health issues linked to the environment are affected by sectoral policy proposals, with for example air pollution clearly affected by transport.

Annex 3

Targets set by EU environment policy

The 7th EAP operates against a background of many existing targets, which provide a web of objectives for different policy areas. This Annex documents some of the main targets.

In the energy sector, major targets have been established for energy efficiency and renewable energy sources: the EU has made the commitment to reduce the consumption of primary energy by 20% by 2020, compared to energy consumption forecasts for 2020; this objective is part of the "20-20-20" targets. The 2020 target has not yet been fully translated into binding measures but some legislative steps have been taken on "zero-energy" buildings for instance.

Also part of the "20-20-20" targets: renewable energy sources should increase to 20% of final energy consumption, with specific targets on biofuels and electricity; and GHG emissions should be reduced by 20% by 2020 compared to 1990. Stronger reductions targets are set in strategic documents by 2030 and by 2050 (-40% and -80%). In this regard, the transport sector is subject to an extensive set of targets for the reduction of GHG emissions from cars and light commercial vehicles, but also from shipping and air transport. The Transport Roadmap in particular calls for airlines to increase their use of sustainable low-carbon fuels to 40% and shipping to reduce by 40% its carbon emissions by 2050 (compared to 2005 levels).

These targets also aim at improving air quality, with further strategic objectives for reduction of emissions by 2012 and 2020. Legislative measures set national emission ceilings for 4 relevant atmospheric pollutants (sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds and ammonia), responsible for acidification, eutrophication and ground-level ozone pollution to be met by Member States by 2010.

Regarding waste, the EU waste policy aims at ensuring among other objectives that by 2020: waste is managed as a resource; waste generated per capita is in absolute decline; re-use and recycling of waste are economically attractive options for public and private actors; landfilling is virtually eliminated; illegal shipments are eradicated.

Such as turning waste into a resource, strategic objectives related to sustainable consumption and production are developed in the Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe for the transformation of the European economy by 2020. These non binding objectives include phasing out environmentally harmful subsidies, decoupling economic growth from resource use, setting of resource efficiency targets and indicators…

By 2020 again, water abstraction should stay below 20% of available renewable water resources, the impacts of droughts and floods should be minimised, with adapted crops, increased water retention in soils and efficient irrigation; alternative water supply should only be relied upon when all cheaper savings opportunities are taken. In the medium term, three important binding objectives prevail in the water sector: good ecological and chemical status of all surface and groundwater bodies by 2015; compliance with bathing water quality by 2015; and good environmental status in the marine environment by 2020.

The rapid adoption of the Regulation for the registration, evaluation, authorization and restriction of chemicals (REACH) was considered a milestone in the Review of the EU Sustainable Development Strategy which requires that by 2020 chemicals are produced and used in ways that do not threaten human health and the environment. REACH provides compulsory measures on banning the manufacture, placing on the market or use of a chemical substance that poses an unacceptable risk to health or the environment.

As for biodiversity and nature, ambitious strategic objectives exist: halting the loss of biodiversity and the degradation of ecosystems by 2020; restoring at least 15% of degraded ecosystems; halting global forest loss by 2030; ensuring an objective of no net land take by 2050.

In terms of target development, The Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe (henceforth 'Roadmap')[1] announced that the European Commission would launch a joint effort with stakeholders to define indicators and targets for guiding actions and monitoring progress on the path to the 2050 resource efficiency vision.

The following table presents a more comprehensive inventory of EU environmental policy targets for the period 2010-2050, according to the 7th EAP problem definition. It shows the timeline for implementation of strategic objectives (in blue) and binding objectives (in red) set by EU legislation.[2]

Objectives || Sources || Deadline for implementation

Ensuring that Europe's natural capital is sufficiently resilient to pressure and change

Pressure on ecosystems (from air pollution, eutrophication)

Reduction in excess acid deposition of 74% and 39% in forest areas and surface freshwater areas respectively || Thematic Strategy on Air Pollution, COM(2005)446 final || Þ2020 || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

43% reduction in areas or ecosystems exposed to eutrophication || Thematic Strategy on Air Pollution, COM(2005)446 final || Þ2020 || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

Conservation Status (safeguard EU's most important habitats and species)

Achieve a significant and measurable improvement in the status of species and habitats covered by EU nature legislation || COM(2011)244 final || Þ2020 || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

Biodiversity in the marine environment is maintained || Directive 2008/56/EC || Þ2020 || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

Biodiversity (terrestrial and marine species and habitats)

Halt the loss of biodiversity || Review of the EU Sustainable Development Strategy, European Council, June 2006 || Þ2010 || || || || || || || || || || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

Fishing within MSY || Review of the EU Sustainable Development Strategy, European Council, June 2006; COM(2011)571 final; COM(2011)244 final || Þ2015 || || || || || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

Improve management and avoid overexploitation of renewable natural resources || Review of the EU Sustainable Development Strategy, European Council, June 2006 || Þ2015 || || || || || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

Halt the loss of biodiversity and the degradation of ecosystem services || COM(2011)571 final || Þ2020 || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

Halt global forest cover loss || COM(2008)645 final || Þ2030 ||

No net land take || COM(2011)571 final || Þ2050

Better protection/restoration of ecosystems and their services and greater use of green infrastructure || COM(2011)244 final || Þ2020 || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

Better management of EU fish stocks || COM(2011)244 final || Þ2020 || ||

Tighter controls of invasive alien species || COM(2011)244 final || Þ2020 || ||

Greater EU contribution to adverting global biodiversity loss || COM(2011)244 final || Þ2020 || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

Soil degradation (soil erosion)

Reduce soil erosion and the rate of land take, increase soil organic matter || COM(2011)571 final || Þ2020 || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

Natural capital and ecosystem services are properly valued || COM(2011)571 final || Þ2020 || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

EU policies take into account their direct and indirect impact on land use || COM(2011)571 final || Þ2020 || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

More sustainable agriculture and forestry || COM(2011)244 final || Þ2020 || ||

Water quality (ecological and chemical status)

Surfaces and groundwater bodies in river basins achieve “good status” as required by the WFD || Directive 2000/60/EC || Þ2015 || || || || || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

“Good environmental status” is achieved or maintained in the marine environment || Directive 2008/56/EC || Þ2020 || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

Priority hazardous substances under Directive 2008/105/EC are eliminated from surface waters in accordance with the WFD || Directive 2008/105/EC || Þ2028 ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

Water pollution (from point sources and bathing water quality

Bathing waters achieve a classification of at least “sufficient” || Directive 2006/7/EC || Þ2015 || || || || || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

Extension of IPPC requirements to new activities || Directive 2010/75/EU || Þ2015 || || || || || ||

Objectives || Sources || Deadline for implementation

Ensuring that Europe's economy is highly resource efficient and low-carbon emitting

GHG emissions

EU-15 shall cut its aggregate GHG emissions by 8% compared to 1990 levels(2008-2012) || Kyoto Protocol approved by the EU in 2002 || Þ2012 || || || || || || || || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

Stop to production of HCFCs || Regulation 1005/2009/EC || Þ2019 || || ||

Reduce GHG emissions by 20% compared to 1990 levels || Proposals of the European Commission approved by the European Council in 2007 || Þ2020 || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

Reduce GHG emissions by approximately 10% compared to 2005 levels in sectors not covered by ETS, excluding LULUFC || Decision 406/2009/EC || Þ2020 || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

Reduce GHG emissions by 40% compared to 1990 levels || COM(2011)112 final || Þ2030 ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

Reduce GHG emissions by 80% compared to 1990 levels || COM(2011)21 final and COM(2011)112 final || Þ2050

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

Phase out of MAC designed to use F-gases with global warming potential >150 for new types of vehicles || Directive 2006/40/EC || Þ2011 || || || || || || || || || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

Fleet average CO2 emissions from for new cars: 120g/km || Review of the EU Sustainable Development Strategy, European Council, June 2006 || Þ2012 || || || || || || || || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

1% yearly reduction in transport GHG emissions on average || COM(2011)571 final || Þ2012 || || || || || || || || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

Fleet average CO2 emissions from new cars: 130g/km (2012-2015) || Regulation 443/2009/EC || Þ2015 || || || || || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

Phase out of MAC designed to use F-gases with global warming potential >150 for new vehicles || Directive 2006/40/EC || Þ2017 || || || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

Fleet average CO2 emissions from new light commercial vehicles: 175g/km (2014-2017) || Regulation 510/2011/EU || Þ2017 || || || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

Fleet average CO2 emissions from new light commercial vehicles: 147g/km || Regulation 510/2011/EU || Þ2020 || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

Fleet average CO2 emissions from new cars: 95g/km || COM(2010)186 final || Þ2020 || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

95 g CO2/km as average emissions for the new car fleet || Regulation 443/2009/EC || Þ2020 || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

Reduce life cycle GHG emissions x unit of energy from fuel and energy supplied by at least 6% compared to a fuel baseline standard || Directive 98/70/EC, consolidated version || Þ2020 || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

Reduce CO2 emissions from the transport sector by 20% compared to 2008 levels || COM(2011)144 final || Þ2030 ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

Reduce conventionally fuelled cars in cities by 50% || COM(2011)144 final || Þ2030 ||

Major urban centers achieve essentially CO2-free city logistics || COM(2011)144 final || Þ2030 ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

30% of road freight over 300 km shifts to rail/waterborne transport || COM(2011)144 final || Þ2030 ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

Reduce CO2 emissions from the transport sector by 60% compared to 1990 levels || COM(2011)144 final || Þ2050

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

Phase petrol cars out in cities || COM(2011)144 final || Þ2050

Shift 50% of road freight over 300 km to rail/waterborne transport || COM(2011)144 final || Þ2050

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

Shift to rail the majority of long and medium distance passenger road transport || COM(2011)144 final || Þ2050

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

Airlines increase their use of low carbon fuels by 40% || COM(2011)144 final || Þ2050

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

Reduce EU carbon emissions from shipping by 40% compared to 2005 levels || COM(2011)144 final || Þ2050

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

Energy efficiency

Overall national indicative energy saving target of 9%of the annual average amount of final energy consumption || Directive 2006/32/EC || Þ2016 ||

||

||

Reduce by 20% the consumption of primary energy compared to energy consumption forecasts for 2020 || COM(2006)545 final; Proposals of the European Commission approved by the European Council in 2007; COM(2010)2020 || Þ2020 || ||

|| ||

All new buildings, occupied and owned by public authorities, are nearly-0-E- buildings || Directive 2010/31/EU || Þ2019 || || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

All new buildings are nearly-0-E-buildings || Directive 2010/31/EU || Þ2020 || ||

Renewable energy sources

Increase RES to 12 % of total energy consumption || Decision 1600/2002/EC; Review of the EU Sustainable Development Strategy, European Council, June 2006 || Þ2010 || || || || || || || || || || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

Increase biomass use by over 50% compared to 2003 || COM(2005)628 final || Þ2010 || || || || || || || || || || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

Increase RES to 15% of total energy consumption || Review of the EU Sustainable Development Strategy, European Council, June 2006 || Þ2015 || || || || || ||

|| || || || || ||

Increase RES to 20% of final energy consumption || Proposals of the European Commission approved by the European Council in 2007; COM(2010)2020 final || Þ2020 || ||

|| ||

Increase RES to 20% of final energy consumption || Directive 2009/28/EC || Þ2020 || ||

|| ||

Increase electricity from RES to 21% of total electricity consumption || Review of the EU Sustainable Development Strategy, European Council, June 2006; Directive 2001/77/EC || Þ2010 || || || || || || || || || || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

Achieve a percentage of 22% of the electricity production from renewable energies || Decision 1600/2002/EC || Þ2010 || || || || || || || || || || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

Increase biofuels to 5,75% of all petrol and diesel for transport purposes placed on the market by 31 December 2010 || Directive 2003/30/EC || Þ2010 || || || || || || || || || || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

Increase biofuels to 8 % of all petrol and diesel for transport purposes placed on the market || Review of the EU Sustainable Development Strategy, European Council, June 2006 || Þ2015 || || || || || ||

|| || || || || ||

Increase biofuels to 10% of the overall EU transport petrol and diesel consumption || COM(2006)848 final; Proposals of the European Commission approved by the European Council in 2007 || Þ2020 || ||

|| ||

Increase the share of energy from RES to 10% of the final consumption of energy in transport || Directive 2009/28/EC || Þ2020 || ||

|| ||

Decoupling (resource use from economic growth)

Achieve an EU average level of GPP equal to the one of the best performing Member States || Review of the EU Sustainable Development Strategy, European Council, June 2006 || Þ2010 || || || || || || || || || || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

50% of all tendering procedures should be green || COM(2008)400 final || Þ2010 || || || || || || || || || || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

Phase out environmentally harmful subsidies and substantially increase the share of environmental taxes || COM(2011)571 final || Þ2020 || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

Price signals and environmental information in place to stimulate citizens and public authorities to choose the most resource efficient products and services || COM(2011)571 final || Þ2020 || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

Market and policy incentives that reward business investments in efficiency are in place || COM(2011)571 final || Þ2020 || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

Resource efficiency targets and indicators guide public and private decision-makers || COM(2011)571 final || Þ2020 || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

Economic growth and wellbeing is decoupled from resource inputs || COM(2011)571 final || Þ2020 || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

Economy grows respecting resource constraints || COM(2011)571 final || Þ2050

Waste generation

Waste is managed as a resource || COM(2011)571 final || Þ2020 || ||

In absolute decline of waste generated per capita || COM(2011)571 final || Þ2020 || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

No heavy metals (Pb, Hg, Cd, hexavalent Cr, PBB and PBDE) in new electrical and electronic equipment || Directive 165/2011/EU || Þ2019 || || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

20% reduction in the food chain’s resource inputs || COM(2011)571 final || Þ2020 || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

Disposal of edible food waste is halved || COM(2011)571 final || Þ2020 || ||

Waste management

Ensure high quality recycling || COM(2011)571 final || Þ2020 || ||

Limit energy recovery to non recyclable materials || COM(2011)571 final || Þ2020 || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

Virtually eliminate landfilling || COM(2011)571 final || Þ2020 || ||

Eradicate illegal shipments of waste || COM(2011)571 final || Þ2020 || ||

Recycling targets for batteries (by average weight): - 65% of lead acid batteries, - 75% of nickel cadmium batteries, - 50% of other batteries || Directive 2006/66/EC || Þ2011 || || || || || || || || || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

Targets for end of life vehicles (by average weight per vehicle per year): - Reuse + Recovery: 95% - Reuse + Recycling: 85% || Directive 2000/53/EC || Þ2015 || || || || || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

Reycling+ Reuse: 70% by weight of non hazardous construction & demolition waste || Directive 2008/08/EC || Þ2020 || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

Recycling+ Reuse: 50% by weight paper, plastic, glass, metal from households || Directive 2008/08/EC || Þ2020 || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

Landfilling of biodegradable municipal waste: reduction to 50% of total 1995 biodegradable municipal waste || Directive 1999/31/EC || Þ2010 || || || || || || || || || || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

Decontamination or disposal of equipment with PBC volumes > 5 dm3 || Directive 96/59/EC || Þ2010 || || || || || || || || || || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

Collection target for batteries: 25% || Directive 2006/66/EC || Þ2012 || || || || || || || || ||

Separate collection for glass, plastic, metal, paper || Directive 2008/98/EC || Þ2015 || || || || || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

Collection target for batteries: 45% || Directive 2006/66/EC || Þ2016 || || || || ||

Disposal of biodegradable municipal waste: reduction to 35% of total 1995 biodegradable municipal waste || Directive 1999/31/EC || Þ2016 || || || || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

Water stress (water exploitation)

Keep water abstraction below 20% of available renewable water resources || COM(2011)571 final || Þ2020 || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

Alternative water supply options are only relied upon when all cheaper savings opportunities are taken || COM(2011)571 final || Þ2020 || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

The impacts of droughts and floods are minimised || COM(2011)571 final || Þ2020 || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

Objectives || Sources || Deadline for implementation

Ensuring that the health and wellbeing of EU citizens continue to benefit from high degrees of environmental protection

Transboundary air pollution

PM2,5and ozone target values || Directive 2008/50/EC || Þ2010 || || || || || || || || || || ||

National emission ceilings for SO2, NOx; VOC, NH3 || Directive 2001/81/EC || Þ2010 || || || || || || || || || || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

Second set of VOCs limit values for paints and varnishes || Directive 2004/42/EC || Þ2010 || || || || || || || || || || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

Target values for concentration of As, Cd, Hg, Ni, benzo(a)pyrene in air || Directive 2004/107/EC || Þ 2012 || || || || || || || || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

New PM2,5 limit value + exposure concentration obligation || Directive 2008/50/EC || Þ2015 || || || || || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

Extension of IPPC requirements to new activities || Directive 2010/75/EU || Þ2015 || || || || || ||

New ELV for selected VOCs and halogenated VOCs || Directive 2010/75/EU || Þ2015 || || || || || ||

|| || || || || ||

New ELV for existing large combustion plants and for combustion plants which co-incinerate waste || Directive 2010/75/EU || Þ2016 || || || || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

Service stations with a throughput>3,000 m3 shall install PVRII technology || Directive 2009/126/EC || Þ2018 || || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

Emissions reductions:-82% of SO2, -60% of NOx, -51% of VOCs, -27% of NH3, -59% of primary PM2,5 compared to the year 2000 || Thematic Strategy on Air Pollution, COM(2005)446 final || Þ2020 || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

PM2.5 indicative limit value and exposure reduction target || Directive 2008/50/EC || Þ2020 || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

Marine fuels with a sulphur content of over 0.1% by mass are prohibited at berth in EU ports and in Sulphur Emission Control Areas || Directive 1999/32/EC consolidated version || Þ2010 || || || || || || || || || || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

Air quality in urban areas

47% reduction in loss of life expectancy as a result of exposure to particulate matter || Thematic Strategy on Air Pollution, COM(2005)446 final || Þ2020 || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

10% reduction in acute mortalities from exposure to ozone || Thematic Strategy on Air Pollution, COM(2005)446 final || Þ2020 || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

When purchasing road transport vehicles contracting authorities shall take into account energy and environmental aspects || Directive 2009/33/EC || Þ2010 || || || || || || || || || || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

Euro 5 standard for registration and sale of new types of cars || Regulation 715/2007/EC || Þ2011 || || || || || || || || || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

Euro VI standard for new types of heavy vehicles || Regulation 595/2009/EC || Þ2012 || || || || || || || || ||

Euro VI standard for all new heavy vehicles || Regulation 595/2009/EC || Þ2013 || || || || || || || ||

Euro 6 standard for approval of light vehicles || Regulation 715/2007/EC || Þ2014 || || || || || || ||

Euro 6 standard for registration and sale of new types of cars || Regulation 715/2007/EC || Þ2015 || || || || || ||

|| || || || || ||

Chemicals

REACH restrictions concerning tri-substituted organostannic compounds, PHAs, DEGME, DEGBE, MDI, cyclohexane and ammonium nitrate || Regulation 1907/2006/EC and amendments || Þ2010 || || || || || || || || || || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

Phase out of several active substances contained in selected biocidal product types[3] || Regulation 1451/2007/EC and Directive 98/8/EC consolidated version || Þ2010 || || || || || || || || || || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

Ban on the export of metallic mercury || Regulation 1102/2008/EC || Þ2011 || || || || || || || || || ||

Phase out of several active substances contained in selected biocidal product types || Regulation 1451/2007/EC and Directive 98/8/EC consolidated version || Þ2011 || || || || || || || || || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

REACH restrictions concerning DOT compounds, Cd, dichloromethane (final deadline), acrylamide || Regulation 1907/2006/EC and amendments || Þ2012 || || || || || || || || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

Phase out of several active substances contained in selected biocidal product types || Regulation 1451/2007/EC and Directive 98/8/EC consolidated version || Þ2012 || || || || || || || || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

Phase out of several active substances contained in selected biocidal product types || Regulation 1451/2007/EC and Directive 98/8/EC consolidated version || Þ2013 || || || || || || || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

Biocidal products containing “existing active substances” (on the market in the EU on 14 May 2000)not included in Annex I shall no longer be placed on the market || Directive 98/8/EC consolidated version || Þ2014 || || || || || || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

General principles of integrated pest management are implemented by all professional users || Directive 2009/128/EC || Þ2014 || || || || || || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

“Sunset date” for the following SVHC: 5-ter-butyl-2,4,6-trinito-m-xylene and MDA || Regulation 1907/2006/EC and amendments || Þ2014 || || || || || || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

“Sunset date” for the following SVHC: HBCDD, DEHP, BBP, DBP, DIBP, diarsenic trioxide, diarsenicpentaoxide, lead chromate, lead sulfochromate yellow, lead chromate molbydatesulphate red, TCEP and 2,4-DNT || Regulation 1907/2006/EC and amendments || Þ2015 || || || || || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

REACH restrictions concerning DBT compounds (final deadline) || Regulation 1907/2006/EC || Þ2015 || || || || || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

Ensure that chemicals are produced and used without threats to humans and the environment || Review of the EU Sustainable Development Strategy, European Council, June 2006 || Þ2020 || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || ||

The EEA[4] assessed the gaps to targets according to projected trends for the most critical targets by 2020 in 4 sectors: energy use, GHG emissions, air pollutants and waste. These targets are used as proxies for the transition towards a green economy. It shows a lack of structural break, which is needed for this economic transition, in the past and forecast trends, thus allowing to calculate a gap to target (see table below).

Projected gap to target in energy use by 2020

Energy

Target || Indicator || Projected trend towards 2020 || Gap to target

Reduce by 20% the consumption of primary energy compared to energy consumption forecasts Saving target of 368 Mtoe of primary energy compared to projected consumptions of 1842 Mtoe || Total primary energy supply = total domestic energy supply + net imports (proxy for apparent consumption) || No significant break, energy consumption has increased steadily || 2009: TPES= 1654 Mtoe Projection for 2020= > 1700 Mtoe Target= < 1400 Mtoe Gap = > 300 Mtoe

Projections 2010-2020 for primary energy consumption EU27, and energy efficiency target Source: EEA elaborations on IEA data

Projected gap to target in GHG emissions by 2020

GHG emissions

Target || Indicator || Projected trend towards 2020 || Gap to target

Binding target: reduce emissions by 10% compared to 2005 levels Strategic target: reduce GHG emissions by 20% compared to 1990 levels (-40% by 2030; - 80% by 2050) || GHG emissions || Slowly decreasing trend in the 2000s. Target likely to be achieved but not the targets for 2030 and 2050, especially if economic recovery from crisis increases. || Gap-to-binding target: 237 million tons CO2 Gap-to-strategic target: 389 million tons CO2

Total GHG emissions in EU27 (000 tonne of CO2 eq.): projections 2009-2020 compared to policy targets Source: EEA elaborations on EDGAR-HYDE 1.4; Van Aardenne et al. (2001) adjusted to Olivier and Berdowki (2001). CO2, CH4 and N2O included (for 1970-1989) and Eurostat (for 1990-2008) Note: Significant structural breaks: 1980-1981 and 1986-1990 (1%).Actual data 1970-2008; projected data 2009-2020 based on autoregressive model AR (1) on the differences (1991-2008) (with three terms moving average)

Projected gap to target in air pollution by 2020

Air pollutants

Target || Indicator || Projected trend towards 2020 || Gap to target

Emissions reductions:-82% of SO2, -60% of NOx, -51% of VOCs, -27% of NH3, -59% of primary PM2,5 compared to the year 2000 || Projections for group of substances (comparison with target for specific substance imprecise) || Targets could be met for tropospheric ozone potential, but not for SO2: current trend of slowdown in SO2 reduction || See graph below

EU27 projections 2008-2010 for acidifying substances (tons of SO2 equivalent) assuming the % target 2020 for SO2 Source: EEA elaborations on Eurostat data Note: Significant structural break: no. Actual data 1990-2007; projected data 2008-2020 based on autoregressive model AR (1) on levels

Projected gap to target in waste by 2020

Waste

Target || Indicator || Projected trend towards 2020 || Gap to target

Waste generated per capita in absolute decline; landfilling virtually eliminated || Level of per capita Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) || Increasing generation (increasing solid waste generation per capita for EU12) Decreasing trend in landfill use and increasing incineration to converge towards parity of the two in 2020 || 2008: MSW=524 kg per capita Projection for 2020= 542 kg/cap 2008: landfilled MSW = 207 kg/cap Projection for 2020 = 175 kg/cap

EU27 projections 2009-2020 for MWS generation (kg per capita) and objective of ‘waste generated per capita in absolute decline’ in 2020 Source: EEA elaborations on Eurostat data. Note: significant structural breaks (1%): no. Significant structural breaks (5%): no. Actual data 1995-2008; projected data 2009-2020 based on autoregressive model AR (1) on the differences EU27 projections 2009-2020 for MSW landfilled (kg per capita) and strategic target of ‘near zero landfill’ in 2020 Source: EEA elaborations on Eurostat data. Note: significant structural breaks (1%): no; Significant structural breaks (5%): 2001. Actual data 1995-2008; projected data 2009-2020 based on autoregressive model AR (1) on the differences

[1] COM(2011)571

[2] Tables are based on "EU Environmental and Resource Policies: Strategic Objectives and Binding Targets", Susanna Paleari, CERIS-CNR for the EEA (forthcoming)

[3] The complete list of active substances and the related dates by which products containing these active substances shall no longer be placed on the market for the relevant product-types is available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/biocides/pdf/list_dates_product_2.pdf

[4] Towards a Green Economy in the EU, Gaps and macroprocesses, EEA, April 2012

Annex 1

Details of the responses to the public consultation

The Commission has recently consulted stakeholders on several thematic issues such as biodiversity, water, resource efficiency or sustainable consumption and production. This ad hoc public consultation with a background document and an online questionnaire was broader and more strategic in nature. It aimed at collecting the views of all stakeholders, at EU and national level, and the public at large, on the environmental policy priorities up to 2020, the priority areas to be addressed and the most effective tools in addressing them.

The consultation was launched on 12 March and closed on 1 June2012.

The final number of web respondents to the public consultation was 300: 136 (45%) responses came from individuals and 164 (55%) came from organisations. A further 39 written contributions were received by the same date from industry, NGOs, national authorities and other organisations/individuals.

Out of the total 164 responses on behalf of organisations, the majority came from companies/business associations (57), followed by NGOs (47), regional/local public authorities (21), national authorities (10), "others" (10), international organisations (7), academic organisations (3), law firms/consultancies (3), think-tanks (3), trade unions (2) and one response from a representative of religions (see Figure 1).

40% of the respondents answered on behalf of an EU-wide organisation, while the other organisations mainly originate from Germany (16), United Kingdom (10), Spain (9), France (8), Poland, Finland and Austria (7 each).

Figure 1: Breakdown of respondents according to their type of organisation

1. Added value of a new EAP and major challenges

ü The final assessment of the 6th EAP has pointed to strengths and weaknesses of such a programme. In your view, how could a new EAP best add value to EU environment policy?

232 of the 300 respondents agree on the added value of a new EAP (63% of whom strongly agree) whereas only 1.3 % of the respondents think a new EAP would have no added value. A larger number of organisation compared to individuals 'strongly agree' on the added value of a 7th EAP (67% versus 58%).

The best added value to EU environment policy by the 7th EAP is seen in:

1) developing a strategic agenda for the environment,

2) ensuring full implementation of agreed policies and legislation, and

3) providing a coherent framework and furthering the integration of environmental considerations into other policies. 55% of the respondents very much agree on these options.

A more moderate agreement was expressed for the following:

· Ensuring a joint commitment from EU institutions and Member States to a common agenda;

· Stimulating public debate on environmental priorities and active participation of citizens, local authorities and businesses;

· Providing the long term certainty and a conducive framework for the private sector to invest in resource efficiency, low carbon technology and eco-innovation;

· Defining a detailed list of actions to be implemented by 2020;

· Establishing environmental priority objectives for inclusion in the monitoring process of the EU semester.

The results however show a divergence when looking at the choices of the different types of organisations: businesses rank as best added value the provision of a long-term certainty and a conducive framework for the private sector to invest in resource efficiency, low-carbon technology and eco-innovation; whereas governmental organisations (regional, national & international) and NGOs rank as best added value the provision of a coherent framework and a further integration of environmental considerations into other policies.

ü The final assessment of the 6th EAP has shown that a long term vision for Europe's environment would help in guiding the definition of priority objectives to be achieved by 2020. Bearing in mind the long term visions already set out in the Resource Efficiency Roadmap[1], the 2050 Low-Carbon Roadmap[2] and the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020[3], are there any elements you feel are missing?

Free responses by organizations

Some 35% of them indicate that there is no significant missing element in terms of areas to be tackled, but there should be higher focus on implementation and more realistic and achievable milestones. Others, mainly NGOs, indicated the need to add policies for addressing chemical pollution and new risks.

Among the elements that appear more often are the inclusion in the 7th EAP of a health & environment priority to protect human health and wildlife from endocrine disruptors (EDCs), chemical mixtures, nanomaterials and SVHC, with the policy goal to have all “known and suspected" SVHC substituted by 2020. For 40% of organisations, diseases (environmental non-transmissible diseases) should also be analyzed. Some also point to the need to promote a bio-based economy and the use of renewable materials where possible for all products.

A significant number of organizations (35%) mention as an important element the increase of policy coherence and integration of environment into other policies, e.g. transport. Among the options indicated to address policy coherence: more consistency in the implementation of the various policy papers and the need to clearly link the 2050 vision to medium-term targets for 2020 and 2030; harmonization of all EU policy objectives and the inclusion of binding targets e.g. setting a target for resource efficiency (such as a 80% absolute reduction in resource use) and an early agreement on a firm 2030 climate target with the ETS as its central policy instrument; elimination of multiple and overlapping targets and assessment of the interactions between targets; integrated approaches for food production (e.g. sustainable spatial planning for land use); an integrated climate change adaptation strategy that also aims to reduce natural disasters; long-term vision for the urban environment.

Another common issue was the international aspects of policies: the EU should consider the impacts of its policies on third countries, but also impacts on EU competitiveness by importing products with lower environmental standards.

Some other elements often mentioned: the necessity to take on board new technologies and innovation, to support knowledge base and research and to promote citizens involvement, governance and transparency. The use of economic instruments is another recurrent element, by strengthening price signals, including a stronger CO2 cost integration. Support for the creation of inclusive business models that account for business needs, including a differentiated approach for SMEs, and better information to customers to help them make choices.

Free responses by individuals

Almost one third of the individuals consider that no element is missing from the three visions mentioned in the question. Among the elements that appear more often in the free responses was the need for enforcement strategies and tools that will push the Member States to respond to and respect agreed environmental targets, implement legislation and other binding agreements, and promote compliance. Some respondents indicate the need to apply sanctions, while others say that more effort is needed for making rules compulsory for business.

Respondents mention also the need to transform not only the European economy, but also the society; to reduce consumption by changing people’s consumption attitudes; to reduce the environmental footprint of production and consumption by promoting recycling; to value the resources we use; to set targets to be achieved and to measure progress in achieving these targets with other indicators than GDP.

Another very common element in most of the responses was the need to enhance the role that the environment is playing for human health and the wellbeing of society. Some respondents asked for an environmental social agenda and even a roadmap, others asked for assuring the resilience of the environment, or highlight the need to address new challenges in the fields of chemicals and nanomaterials, pointing to the need for testing new technologies before applying them.

The management of natural resources scored also high in the elements that the vision should contain. Respondents felt that the vision set out in the biodiversity strategy should be complemented by action to promote the sustainable management of scarce natural resources, while others made explicit references to the need for action on soil, on reducing urban sprawl, on a comprehensive climate change adaptation that looks beyond climate change objectives, and the need to preserve the European culture, landscape and traditional land use practices. Other issues mentioned, but to a lesser frequency, were noise, air quality and the quality of urban environment and buildings. Only few respondents mentioned also the link of this vision with the global level asking for the footprint of Europe and its imports to be sustainable.

ü In your view, how important is it for the EU to address the following environmental challenges?

The environmental challenges considered the most important (more than 50% of the respondents consider them very important) to be addressed at EU level are: biodiversity loss and degradation of ecosystem services; energy production and use; water pollution; climate change mitigation/greenhouse gas reductions; unsustainable consumption & production patterns; pollution from hazardous chemicals; outdoor air pollution; marine resource exploitation; environmental challenges linked to food and to energy production and use. Challenges that are comparatively given the least importance are indoor air pollution, major industrial accidents and noise (with respectively 31%, 30% and 23% of respondents considering them very important).

Businesses give less importance to the environmental challenges compared to other respondents, many of them (between 35 and 50%) considering them only important instead of very important. Overall, the environmental challenges given the most importance by businesses are unsustainable consumption patterns (65% consider it important and very important - more than production patterns), climate change mitigation and energy production & use. The same issues are topping NGOs' list but their answers are more concentrated. For instance 30% of businesses consider climate change mitigation very important and 40% important; when 72% of NGOs consider it very important. For NGOs, unsustainable production patterns are ranked more important than consumption patterns: they are considered very important by 77% of NGOs. Biodiversity loss & degradation of ecosystem services is ranked the most important by governmental organisations (74% of them consider it very important).

ü Which of the following best describes what needs to be done as a priority to address each of these challenges?

Concerning the priority approaches to address the identified challenges, there is a strong call for EU action to address the identified environmental challenges: in only three cases the option "no need for further action" is chosen by more than 5% of respondents. Those cases were: indoor air pollution, noise and major industrial accidents, where respectively 10%, 6% and 9% of respondents consider that no further action is needed.

Concerning the typo of action needed:

· The use of market based instruments (MBIs) is identified as a priority for unsustainable consumption and production patterns, and considered more relevant for consumption than production. MBIs are considered a priority also when dealing with resource overconsumption, potential scarcity and price volatility, which is also linked to consumption and production issues.

· Improving existing legislation is considered as a priority mainly for dealing with pollution issues: pollution from hazardous chemicals, water pollution, outdoor and indoor air pollution, marine pollution, but also insufficient water quality, generation or proliferation of waste, and noise. It is also considered the preferred instrument to address biodiversity loss and degradation of ecosystem services; deforestation; major industrial accidents; and, although in a minor way, environmental challenges linked to the urban environment.

· Filling the gaps through new legislation seems a priority for most of the respondents in the case of adaptation to climate change; competitive uses of land and soil degradation and pollution. It is also rated as a priority by most of the respondents for marine resource exploitation; environmental challenges linked to food, housing, mobility, energy production and use.

· Strengthening the mainstreaming of environmental considerations in other policies appears as a quite important measure, even though not considered a priority by the majority of respondents.

It is worth noting that responses show a division on the best tools to address climate change issues: 27% are in favour of improving existing legislation, 26% of filling policy gaps and 21% of using MBIs to address mitigation/GHG reduction; while to address adaptation to the impacts of climate change 28% are in favour of filling policy gaps, 22% of strengthening the mainstreaming of environmental considerations and 18% of improving legislation.

More than 50% of businesses express no opinion on several issues such as marine resource exploitation, marine pollution or food. Very polarized answers by NGOs were registered on land use, with 28% showing no opinion and the others split among strengthening mainstreaming, more use of MBIs and legislative measures. Governmental organisations' answers show more dispersion on the measures to implement when addressing key sectors (food, housing, mobility).

ü In your view, which of the following policies hold the greatest potential for improving the quality of the environment?

Concerning the potential of other policies to improve the quality of environment, more than 40% of respondents considered that those with the greatest potential are, in order: energy (53% of respondents consider it holds the greatest potential), transport (47%), agriculture (46%) and the cross-sectorial climate change policy (41%). Also economic and social policies are considered having a significant potential: research & innovation, economic & financial policy (e.g. taxation), education & culture, regional policy. EU development cooperation and enterprise & SMEs policies are considered comparatively with a more limited potential for environmental improvements, with less than 15% of respondents considering them holding the greatest potential.

More than 50% of businesses see in research & innovation the greatest potential for improving the quality of environment, while a majority of NGOs and governmental organisations see in economic & financial policy high potential against a 12% of businesses. Interestingly, 55% of NGOs consider that public procurement has a significant environmental potential, against 24% of governmental organisations (who would have to apply them) who consider it with high environmental potential.

Free responses by organizations

Only 20% of the organisations chose to suggest an additional policy. Within other policies that can play a role in improving the quality of the environment the most quoted have been research & innovation, as well as science development and ITC. Other policies that also scored high were health, chemicals and waste & recycling policies. Some respondents identified the need for more policies that will try to change behaviours, in particular consumer behaviour. Some also indicated the need for economic tools (reinforcement of taxation, shift of taxation from labour to resources, water pricing/taxes, tax for pesticides and chemicals, reform of EHS), and for addressing property rights and patents. Others mentioned biodiversity & nature protection, resource & product policies and regional policy. Finally, some respondents mentioned the SDS and the need for a holistic approach, as most of the European policies are interrelated.

Free responses by individuals

Around 30% of the individuals choose the option "other" in this question, with a majority of them pointing to the need to develop social and behavioral policies aiming to change people’s attitudes, consumption patterns and responses. Some pointed to the need to address security issues and resilience of ecosystems and society, as well as policies for raw materials and minerals. Others suggested policies that will make the transformation to a more sustainable economy happen, that will examine how financial systems can promote sustainability and will promote more use of MBIs. Some respondents mentioned the need to develop new policies to address nanomaterials and ecotoxicity, as well as GMOs, while others asked for integrated spatial policies to address tourism, urban development, and sustainable agriculture.

ü In your view, which of the following policies hold the greatest potential for contributing to meeting our climate objectives?

Concerning the policies with the greatest potential to contribute to meeting the climate objectives, energy, transport and agriculture are the sectors in which measures would carry the greatest potential. More than 80% of governmental organisations see the greatest potential in energy and transport policies. Economic & financial policy, environment policy, research & innovation are also mentioned among those with a significant potential.

Free responses by organizations

Only 20% of the organisations chose to suggest an additional policy area to support the climate agenda. Most of the replies indicate the need to address areas not covered by the ETS and to strengthen the emission trading scheme. A majority of replies also identified that more can be done by an integrated building and construction/housing policy embedding energy efficiency and by more efforts on waste policy and packaging. The reform of the CAP, as well as promoting the footprint concept, are considered also to be able to help achieving climate targets. Finally economic tools like taxation and reform of EHS are mentioned. Other issues: the need for more awareness raising, for better knowledge base and for improving the resilience of both the environment and the society. Some respondents pointed to the need for strong leadership in international discussions and for strengthening relations with third countries.

Free responses by individuals

Only 10% of the individuals choose to suggest an additional option, highlighting the importance of leading the international climate agenda, by supporting actions to address deforestation, provide for co-operation projects and build awareness raising. Some point to the need to promote more the use of renewable sources of energy, while others address security issues, the resilience of ecosystems and society and their role in adaptation to climate change, as well as the role of soil as carbon sink. Some suggest further efforts on the implementation of agreed policies while others on climate change measures in urban areas, by reducing energy use and being more efficient.

2. New integrated approaches to improve competitiveness and enhance ecological and societal resilience

ü In your view, what are the 3 most important initiatives that should be taken at EU level to reduce the environmental impacts of food production and consumption?

Free responses by organizations

According to the majority of the responses from organizations, food policy should fully contribute to the EU objectives on climate change, air pollution and water protection. A lot of respondents stress the need to promote sustainable and resource efficient agriculture, adopt resource efficiency practices to reduce water use and reform the CAP to better contribute to climate change and environmental objectives. Issues related to land use and efficient spatial planning are also mentioned, as well as the link between food production and the state of Europe's ecosystems.

Food production issues of major concern were the use of pesticides and other harmful substances, the use of antibiotics and endocrine disruptors. Except these risks, the issue of food quality is mentioned by 30% of respondents who suggest that food should be produced locally using traditional practices and favoring organic cultivation. Some mention that urban agriculture could be promoted. Others mention that efforts should be made to take account of the ecological footprint of food produced in third countries and consumed in Europe. The need to address the conflict of land use for farming and for energy production is also mentioned, suggesting the use of guidelines and auditing.

Food waste is also an issue raised by a large part of the respondents, calling for an EU strategy with clear targets, with an increased role for the supply chains and with biowaste treated separately from waste. According to them food packaging should be tackled and the concept of LCA promoted. Education of consumers is needed to introduce good practices in consumption, identify healthy diets and promote less consumption of meat. Economic instruments and market approaches to reduce food waste (such as taxes on imports, higher prices of transport of non-local foods, increase of prices or tax on pesticides, tax on junk/unhealthy food, support for eco-labelling of sustainable food, EHS reduction) have been mentioned by many respondents together with other practical solutions.

Free responses by individuals

Responses to the question on food by individuals often mention the need to produce food locally (thus minimizing transport), using as less pesticides and artificial fertilizers as possible and using old traditional techniques that support sustainable agriculture and the landscape, and also supporting small producers instead of intensive agriculture. Organic farming is preferable to industrial agriculture and organic products should be made more affordable, and GMOs banned. Education of consumers on the dietary value of different foods and efforts to try to switch diets to less meat proteins is felt as an important action by 55% of the respondents. Sustainable use of soil is also quoted. Some of the respondents (35%) mention that we need to take account of the ecological footprint of food produced in third countries and consumed in Europe, and some indicate that the concept of life cycle assessment needs to be applied also to food and that packaging needs to be reduced and recycled. Others mentioned also a variety of economic instruments and market approaches to reduce food waste, like more taxes on imports, higher prices of transport of non-local foods, increase of prices or a tax on pesticides, support for eco-labelling of sustainable food, etc. Some respondents also refer to actions in the food supply chain, pointing to the role of supermarkets and food-banks, as well as to stricter rules on labelling covering different indicators. Research and innovation are also mentioned by some respondents.

ü In your view, what are the 3 most important initiatives that should be taken at EU level to reduce the environmental impacts of housing?

Free responses by organizations

Respondents to this question are mostly governmental organizations and NGOs, as most business have not commented. The great majority feels that actions in this field should be focused on energy efficiency (70%) and on less consumption of materials and land for housing (50%), while at the same time promoting the use of environmentally friendly materials like wood (30%) and water efficiency (30%). Respondents indicate that buildings' renovation plays an important role and that targeted actions to improve buildings' performance in energy and water should be subsidized. Governmental organizations point to the need for better spatial planning and for targeted interventions supported by Structural funds, stressing the need for efficient recycling in towns and more efficiency in the provision of community services (mobility, waste collection, green spaces, etc). NGOs support in addition to the above a wider range of ideas from LCA approaches to new environmental and energy taxes. Some also ask for increasing efforts on awareness-raising on energy efficiency in third countries and mention deforestation issues linked to an overuse of forest resources for energy. All the few business that responded mention energy efficiency, new business models, and the role of novel materials and products aiming to reduce energy consumption.

Free responses by individuals

Individuals feel that actions to address the impacts of housing should be focused on energy and water efficiencies (70%), as well as less consumption of materials and land for housing (50%), while promoting the use of environmental friendly materials like wood (30%). Action in the field of energy should support insulation, solar panels, biomass, etc. Some consider that imports from countries with not so high environmental standards should be kept to a minimum or even banned, while others suggest limiting the ownership of a house to only one per family. A significant proportion of respondents (35%) call for improvements in the current houses and buildings, advocating for support for renovation and retrofitting of buildings, even setting binding targets for it. Some ask for more regulation and a clear reporting from home owners about the sustainability of their houses.

ü In your view, what are the 3 most important initiatives that should be taken at EU level to reduce the environmental impacts of mobility?

Free responses by organizations

Mostly NGOs and governmental organizations replied to this question. The majority suggest supporting a wider use of public transport by enhancing the network and services, promoting the use of bicycles and tele-working, subsidizing more efficient vehicles and using ITC in managing transport networks. Governmental organizations mention the promotion of environmentally friendly transport modes (electrification or renewable energy use in transport), while recognizing the need to promote the reduction of the average distance in daily commuting and to take action towards public information to stimulate behavioral changes. They indicate the need for integrated transport networks, for investment in clean energy and use of economic instruments like taxes or positive tax incentives. Respondents from academia and research mention developing zero emission transport modes; businesses ask for establishing an EU level playing field, for the use of new materials in transport and efforts to develop new engines to reduce emissions from vehicles, for the deregulation of the railway system and for free "cabotage" in order to improve efficiencies.

Free responses by individuals

To reduce the environmental impacts of mobility, the majority of individuals suggest the wider use of public transport and the interdiction for big private cars to enter large cities at certain hours. Half of the respondents mention different MBI that can be used, like taxes in fuels, subsidies for buying electric cars (reduced taxation, reduced electricity price), etc. Some call for better urban planning that will enable to reduce distances between living and working.

ü Sustainable land use has been identified as a major environmental challenge. In relation to this, how important do you consider the following areas to tackle the issue at EU level?

To address sustainable land use at EU level more than 40% of the respondents consider deforestation, conversion of agricultural land to urban land and conversion of land for energy crop cultivation as very important. The most important area for NGOs is the conversion for energy crop cultivation, with 70% of them considering it very important. 34% of governmental organisations give strong importance also to land fragmentation and more than 40% of individuals to desertification. Between 35 and 60% of businesses show no opinion on the different areas.

ü In your view, how important are the following additional measures to the Soil Thematic Strategy for reducing, directly or indirectly, soil degradation?

The reinforcement of existing legislation to improve the application of the "polluter pays" principle (55%) and the setting of binding targets (47%) are considered the most important measures to reduce soil degradation.

When looking into the breakdown of answers, more than 40% of businesses give some importance to the provision of platforms to exchange best practices and to the increase of public awareness on the role played by soil as a resource in the environment & the economy, while 40% consider not important at all setting of binding targets, and 30% show no opinion on the matter. Promoting public awareness is the most important measure for governmental organisations, 66% of them considering it very important, while 47% of NGOs consider it only somewhat important. A majority of individuals see establishing a soil monitoring scheme to measure progress towards less soil degradation as a very important measure.

ü In your view, how well does EU policy currently address the following environment & health related challenges?

On many environment & health related challenges, the answers show that a significant number of respondents either express no opinion or find that EU policy is currently addressing them not well at all. More than 30% think that nanomaterials and the combined effects of chemicals as well as other challenges are not well addressed at all. At the same time, more than 30% show no opinion on endocrine disruptors, nanomaterials and nuclear radiation. EU current policy is addressing well or somewhat well outdoor air pollution, water pollution and climate change for around 30% of respondents. Concerning the specific type of organizations, around 60% of NGOs think the EU is addressing climate change somewhat well and that nanomaterials and the combined effects of chemicals are not well addressed at all.

Free responses by organizations

Only a limited number of respondents (20%) provided some further ideas in addition to the challenges indicated in the questionnaire, the vast majority coming from NGOs and governmental organizations. Most answers stress the need to address unknown environmental risks to health, mainly from chemicals, nanomaterials, endocrine disruptors, persistent organic pollutants and biocides. They also see the need to improve air quality and better monitor air quality related health problems, like asthma and allergies, and to address the combined effects of different environmental stressors. Governmental organizations mention the need for bio-monitoring and improving the quality of air for citizens, as well as addressing electromagnetic radiation for communications, transport, electricity like WIFI spots, etc. Businesses hardly commented on this question, the few calling for level playing field on possible health effects of electromagnetic fields.

Free responses by individuals

Some 40% of individuals provided some further ideas in addition to the challenges indicated in the questionnaire. Some mention the links of health with soil loss, landscape quality, and increase in antibiotics use, while other mention that scarcity of essential resources may have impacts on human health. The emerging risks from electromagnetic fields was central to the answer of 40% of the replies, mentioning electromagnetic radiations like WIFI spots, cellular phones in public transport and increasing exposure of children to them. Others say that the combination of impacts from chemicals, noise and electromagnetic pollution should be addressed. Few mentioned that bio-monitoring should be used as a toll to measure impacts. Few pointed also to the risks related to the use of GMOs without studying them further, and the loss of biodiversity and its impact on the pharmaceutical industry.

ü In determining whether cities are sustainable, attractive and clean places to live, what is important for you?

In determining whether cities are sustainable, attractive and clean places to live, the following issues are considered very important to more than 50% of respondents: local transport; green urban areas incorporating sustainable land use; quality of local ambient air; waste production and management; waste water treatment; energy performance. When looking at the responses from NGOs the percentage goes up to 72% for energy performance, 79% for the quality of ambient air, and 87% for local transport. Governmental organisations consider very important local transport (82%), green urban areas (79%), energy performance (76%) and waste water treatment (71%). For more than 60% of individuals, nature and biodiversity is also very important. Around 40% of businesses show no opinion on the matter, with the exception of energy performance that is considered very important by 37% of them.

3. Making change happen

ü In your view, does the type of EU climate and environment legislation (Regulations, which have direct effect, vs. Directives, which need to be transposed into national law) make a difference in terms of delivering environmental benefits, and if so, why?

Free responses by organizations

One third of the respondents either did not answer or indicated “no opinion/do not know”. Another third consider that both Regulations and Directives should be employed. Governmental organizations mention that Directives are preferable when the problem to be addressed requires regional differentiation and flexibility at local level, while Regulations can be more effective and quicker to implement. Businesses say that Regulations should be preferred, as they offer more harmonised standards, equal application and create a level playing field, but also agreed that certain issues are better tackled with Directives when there are different business practices in the EU. In both cases they stress the need not to hamper competitiveness and overburden industry with regulations. The remaining third (mostly NGOs and businesses) is in favour of Regulations because they come into force more quickly, they do not allow for divergences in implementation between Member States, they raise more easily awareness and make the rules clearer. Half of the respondents advocating for regulations mention the need for ambitious but also coherent legislation, calling for other areas linked to environment to be tackled and for new legislation to be developed addressing environment & economy. The need for coherence in policy making is mentioned (mainly by NGOs), the need to reinforce implementation through penalties and sanctions (NGOs and businesses), ideally at EU level instead of at national level. Some respondents, mostly businesses, consider that voluntary initiatives, or the development of and adherence to standards, should also be considered, as they can offer an alternative to legislative approaches and can deliver good results on the ground in implementing policy objectives.

Free responses by individuals

A third of the individuals has “no opinion/do not know”, while two thirds are mostly in favour of Regulations as the best legal instruments to achieve environmental objectives. The reasons mentioned for this are: comes into force more quickly, does not allow for divergences between Member States and makes rules clearer. Some mention the need to review adopted regulations, which should change if the policies are not working, through adaptive management practices.

ü How would you rate the usefulness of increasing the information being actively disseminated on-line by Member States and the Commission on how EU environment legislation is being implemented?

56% of respondents consider useful (or even very useful for 30%) increasing the information being disseminated on-line by Member States and the European Commission on how EU environment legislation is being implemented. 12% consider of little or no use this increase of information. These percentages are quite similar when looking at governmental organisations' answers, while on the opposite, 33% of businesses and 75% of NGOs consider this useful.

ü What contribution do you think the following could make at EU level to strengthen the correct implementation of EU environment law by Member States and ensure a level playing field?

70% of the respondents see as a very significant contribution to strengthening MSs' correct implementation of EU environment legislation: 1) complementing national inspections and surveillance with enhanced capacity at EU level to ensure consistency and effectiveness of implementation; 2) support for experts' networks to share best practice and develop projects of common interest; 3) implementation plans that target resources at solving environmental problems. Complementing national inspections and surveillance is considered significant by 90% of NGOs and almost 50% of them consider very significant also to develop or implement alternative dispute resolution mechanisms. Businesses globally give lower scores to the options described to the exception of a support for expert's networks, considered by 58% of them a significant contribution.

ü Science provides the evidence-base underpinning the development and implementation of climate and environment policy. How would you rate the environmental data currently available to you?

Some 35% of respondents consider sufficient or even excellent (5.7%) the environmental data currently available to them. Only 3% consider it insufficient. When looking at the breakdown by type of respondents, it shows that only 19% of governmental organisations find the available data sufficient against 23% of businesses and 25% of NGOs.

ü How would you consider the potential of the following measures to strengthen the knowledge base for environment policy?

To strengthen the knowledge base for environment policy, the following measures are considered with high potential (more than 40%): improve the science-policy interface and ensure that scientific environmental data are accessible and user-friendly; fill existing research gaps; improve knowledge on consumer's perceptions, values and their actual behaviour. 17% of the respondents consider, instead, that giving to citizens a greater role in monitoring environmental data carries low or no potential. A majority of governmental organisations (55%) find the highest potential in improving knowledge on consumer's perceptions, values and their actual behaviour.

Free responses by organizations

Only 30% of the organisations choose the "other" option, all groups pointing to the need for better environmental information and for improving its accessibility. Governmental organizations ask mainly for the improvement of knowledge base and for capacity building of expert networks; for knowledge dissemination as well as for linking implementation with basic research. They also ask for efficient monitoring of policies and development of methods to address their efficiency, with the help of indicators; and for more use of bio-monitoring. Businesses ask more for monitoring and disclosure of information at Member State, regional/provincial and municipal level, while mentioning the need to improve statistics (for the waste sector in particular). They also mention CO2 labelling and the development of resource flow/e-accounting, as well as strategic planning linking key waste and material streams. They ask for efforts to shorten the periods to transfer results from innovation and research to SMEs. Academics and researchers ask in particular to improve access and share of environmental data and to improve research cooperation with other existing, global or regional, science initiatives. NGOs highlight the need to apply the precautionary principle, to make progress with SEIS and INSPIRE and other information tools, and to explore further the use and application of Market Based Instruments (MBIs).

Free responses by individuals

25% of the individuals chose the "other" option, pointing to the need for better environmental information, to make it accessible to all citizens and scientists. They also emphasise the role of research in facilitating knowledge base for policy making and put a lot of emphasis on the communication aspects and on the need for awareness raising campaigns to empower citizens.

ü How potentially effective do you consider the following initiatives to be in encouraging environmentally-friendly behaviour?

To encourage environmentally-friendly behaviour, the use of incentives to reward environmentally-friendly behaviours and to discourage environmentally-damaging ones is considered effective by more than 75% (very effective by more than 40%) of the respondents. Conversely, applying different approaches for each specific context via "behavioural experiments" is considered the least effective, since only 18% of respondents find it very effective and 20% express no opinion on this specific option.

To NGOs, the least effective measure is the provision of more detailed information to consumers through more detailed labels (15% find it very effective). 70% of governmental organisations find effective (26% very effective) to increase consumer's education and awareness through targeted actions and on-the-spot information.

ü How significant do you consider each of the following actions to be for strengthening the external dimension of EU environment policy?

To strengthen the external dimension of the EU, the action considered the most significant (seen as very significant by almost 50% of the respondents) is the enhancement of the integration of environment in the EU's external policies. More than 40% of the respondents also consider very significant strengthening international environmental governance, strengthening the EU leadership in Multilateral Environmental Agreements, EU leadership through setting unilateral targets and commitments, ensuring that EU is consistent in its interventions in international fora, promoting EU environmental standards abroad and building alliances with other countries in line with EU environmental objectives.

Almost 40% of businesses find not significant at all an EU leadership through setting unilateral targets when 83% of NGOs find it very significant.

Free responses by organizations

Global agreements are seen as the solution for dealing with global problems. There is the need to ensure coherence between environmental objectives, EU companies' practices abroad and the objectives set at EU level. There is also a need for EU leadership in incorporating anti-corruption and accountability commitments in climate financing. The external dimension of the EU environmental policy is considered essential. Development Aid and co-operation assistance to third countries should be linked to sustainability criteria and there is need to link trade and customs policies to the full reciprocity in legislation on imported products. NGOs ask in particular that the EU introduce and propagate an international energy and land quota scheme.

Free responses by individuals

10% of the respondents who chose to indicate an additional option wish to increase efforts on international trade policy (in particular for their impact on climate change) and labelling to avoid that products with chemicals banned in EU enter the EU market, and also efforts to promote globally more the European approach ("lead by example").

4. General final comments

Free responses by organizations

Concerning the final comments/suggestions, these were mentioned:

From Businesses:

· Take into account best practices and initiatives from businesses.

· More integration of environment into other policies.

· No need for a 7th EAP, as Europe 2020 and the flagship initiatives fulfil this need.

· Support more targeted actions for resource efficiency (with focus on the food supply chain).

· Policy for indoor air quality, setting targets and a more ambitious NEC proposal.

· Support and implement ISO standards on packaging. Work with recyclers and manufacturers.

· More efforts in greening transport policy, address emissions of the transport sector.

· Focus on the prevention of exposures to hazardous chemicals through national and EU measures, particularly with regard to EDCs, and the review of the EU Environmental Noise Directive.

· Promote international agreements on climate change, since environmental considerations remain insufficiently tackled in the EU external relations.

From governmental organizations:

· Need to take on board the regional and social specificities in policy making.

· Consider the territorial dimension and the impacts of a future programme to promote better coordination of local stakeholders.

From NGOs:

· Promote the effectiveness of legislation, focus more on implementation.

· Green the EU Treaties, look for a coherent approach to sustainable development, integrate environmental performance assessments in the Annual Growth Survey and in the European Semester, use more evaluation and assessment of progress.

· Seek solutions to problems with management and new technologies.

· Promote a coherent approach to resource efficiency with clear targets, progress on setting indicators

· Introduce a 2050 energy efficiency target.

· Promote efficient land use, implement the EU Biodiversity target, support soil legislation, promote sustainable agriculture, organic farming and reform the CAP

· Address environment and health issues

· Improve sustainable production and consumption, work with consumers.

· Reduce Europe's global footprint, promote the collection of global ecological footprint data.

· Engage with society and stakeholders to promote awareness raising, education and governance.

Free responses by individuals

Concerning the final comments/suggestions, these were mentioned:

· There is no ownership in Member States of the Europe 2020 Strategy.

· In some areas, please do not reinvent the wheel: use the existing expertise/networks. Be pragmatic in the proposed actions. Do more integration for a better leverage of the programme.

· Implementing a vision change can be done best with the base of the society.

· Health should be recognized as a key output in developing environmental policies.

· Produce a scoreboard, and make it public, on the main gaps of each Member State in environmental policy. A barometer of national strengths and weaknesses in divers fields of environmental policy would probably not praise always the same member countries and criticize always the same others, but may encourage discussion and educate pressure groups.

[1] By 2050 the EU's economy has grown in a way that respects resource constraints and planetary boundaries, thus contributing to global economic transformation. Our economy is competitive, inclusive and provides a high standard of living with much lower environmental impacts. All resources are sustainably managed, from raw materials to energy, water, air, land and soil. Climate change milestones have been reached, while biodiversity and the ecosystem services it underpins have been protected, valued and substantially restored.

[2] By 2050, the EU should cut its domestic greenhouse gas emissions by 80% compared to 1990 and all the sectors of the economy – power sector, industry, transport, agriculture, residential and tertiary should contribute to a varying degree and pace.

[3] By 2050, European Union biodiversity and the ecosystem services it provides — its natural capital — are protected, valued and appropriately restored for biodiversity's intrinsic value and for their essential contribution to human wellbeing and economic prosperity, and so that catastrophic changes caused by the loss of biodiversity are avoided.

Annex 4

The outlook to 2020 and beyond to 2050

1) The OECD Environmental Outlook to 2050[1]

By 2050, the Earth’s population is expected to increase from 7 billion to over 9 billion. Coupled with expected higher living standards, global GDP is expected to quadruple, with growing demand for energy and natural resources. To feed a growing population with changing dietary preferences, agricultural land is projected to expand globally in the next two decades to match the increase in food demand. Without new policies, global energy demand is projected to increase by 80%, and the energy mix would remain virtually unchanged from today’s with fossil energy still supplying 85%.[2] Without new green growth policies, continued degradation and erosion of natural environmental capital are expected to 2050, with the risk of irreversible changes that could endanger two centuries of rising living standards. The costs and consequences of inaction are significant, both in economic and human terms. The OECD Environmental Outlook to 2050 suggests that without more ambitious policies, by 2050:

- More disruptive climate change is likely to be locked in, with global GHG emissions projected to increase by 50%. Atmospheric concentrations could reach almost 685 ppm by 2050, resulting in the global average temperature increase of 3 to 6 degree Celsius by the end of the century[3].

- Biodiversity loss is projected to continue globally. The main pressures are land-use change and management (e.g. agriculture, urban sprawl), commercial forestry, infrastructure development, human encroachment and fragmentation of natural habitats, as well as pollution and climate change.

- Global water demand is projected to increase by some 55%, due to growing demand from manufacturing (+400%), thermal electricity generation (+140%) and domestic use (+130%). These pressures could imply water shortages that would hinder the growth of many economic activities.

- The health impacts of urban air pollution will continue to worsen. Because of their ageing and highly urbanised populations, OECD countries are likely to have one of the highest premature death rates linked to ground-level ozone. The burden of disease related to exposure to hazardous chemicals falls more heavily in non-OECD countries.

The Environmental Outlook also highlights the linkages between different environmental issues, and the risk of passing irreversible “tipping points” (e.g. species loss, climate change, groundwater depletion, land and soil degradation).

The OECD’s Green Growth Strategy provides a framework for the best policy mix.

(i) make pollution more costly than greener alternatives (with environmental taxes, emissions trading schemes to put a price on pollution),

(ii) better price the true value of natural assets and ecosystem services (e.g. water pricing, payments for ecosystem services),

(iii) devise proactive and effective regulations (e.g. standards for energy efficiency, to safeguard human health or environmental integrity);

(iv) remove environmentally harmful subsidies (e.g. to fossil fuels);

(v) encourage green innovation

(vi) ensure policy frameworks that incentivise green investments.

Ensuring policy coherence across sectors lies at the heart of a greener growth path. The Outlook also highlights the green growth potential from tackling these environmental challenges, including poverty alleviation, fiscal consolidation and job creation. Impact assessments can be a useful tool towards achieving policy coherence.

The OECD Environmental Outlook to 2050 also makes a clear conclusion: if we do not take policy action to address the key environmental challenges, the costs of inaction to the economy and human wellbeing of over-use of natural resources, pollution and waste will be significant. Early action, that is well designed is often the optimal solution.

2) Looking back – the OECD's analysis of the period covered by the 6EAP

In 2001, Environment Ministers adopted the 'OECD Environmental Strategy for the First Decade of the 21st Century'. The fundamental objective was to maintain ecosystem integrity, particularly climate, biodiversity and water. Four other objectives were also established:

- decoupling environmental pressures from economic growth;

- improving information for decision-making;

- enhancing the interface of social and environmental policies;

- improving global environmental governance and cooperation.

The OECD reports that the objectives of the Strategy have not been fully achieved. In particular, we risk crossing environmental thresholds. However, there have been areas of progress:

• Advances in the scientific and economic understanding of climate change, biodiversity, and other key elements of global change science;

• Participation of a better informed citizenry in environmental policy;

• Use of more cost-effective policy instruments;

• Initiatives by cities and other sub-national levels of government;

• The beginnings of an international carbon market;

• An increase in the share of official development assistance allocated to the environment, particularly to support implementation of the Rio Conventions;

• Strengthened environmental governance in areas such as the marine environment and chemicals.

Factors holding back progress are identified as:

- Prices do not sufficiently internalise environmental costs; and some subsidies create perverse incentives for environmentally harmful activities. For example, natural assets are consistently undervalued in conventional economic analysis and decision making. As a result, there is a gap between private returns from economic activity and the overall benefits that accrue to society.

- Policy ambition and implementation - there is wide variation among, and sometimes within, countries. Convergence with “top-runners” would help, but not be enough.

The scale of many environmental pressures are seen as outstripping the gains that current policies have achieved in terms of more efficient resource use and reduced pollution generation. Current economic structures, and the associated patterns of production and consumption, are reinforcing the dominance of existing technologies, infrastructure and related institutions. These are formidable barriers to the transition to a low-carbon, more resource-efficient economy. Overcoming this inertia will require substantial innovation, not just in technologies but also in the social and institutional relations in which they are embedded.

3) The EU perspective on global environmental challenges to 2050

The Commission commissioned modelling to complement the OECD Environmental Outlook, and to examine in more depth trends particularly of concern to the EU. The study[4] provides a global, model-based analysis of five distinct, vitally important resource themes: (i) Energy, particularly with regard to scarcity associated with fossil fuels and their key role in climate change; (ii) land for agriculture/forestry and terrestrial biodiversity; (iii) phosphorus, especially with regard to its irreplaceable role in agricultural production; (iv) fresh water with attention to water stress in primary catchment areas; and (v) fish stocks.

Looking a few decades ahead, there is ample justification for increasing global concerns in the areas included in the resource efficiency initiative. The model projections suggest, for example, that in the absence of additional targeted policies:

• Global annual energy demand would increase by almost 80% between 2010 and 2050, with 90% of the demand growth in developing and emerging countries. The share of fossil fuels in the total energy demand is projected to remain large (close to 80%). Targets for greenhouse gas emissions would be a long way from being met.

• Increase in agricultural productivity will lag behind increase in food demand, resulting in further expansion in land use for agricultural production in developing countries, notably in Africa and especially up to 2030. This would lead to substantial loss of nature and biodiversity and associated ecosystem services.

• Global annual use of phosphorus fertilisers will increase by 40% up to 2050. Although immediate scarcity of phosphorus in physical terms is unlikely, extraction of this irreplaceable non-renewable resource will concentrate more and more in northern Africa.

• The number of people living in areas affected by severe water stress is projected to increase to 3.9 billion by 2050 (from 1.6 billion in 2000). Most of this increase will take place in South Asia.

• Commercially attractive fish stocks will continue to decline with some functional groups (of similar size and with similar feeding and habitat characteristics) approaching depletion.

With ambitious global efforts, in line with the EU and global objective to limit dangerous climate change to 2° C, the assessment finds that, there is substantial potential to improve efficiency in the use of these resources, a result which is also confirmed by a number of other studies and assessments:

• The increase in global annual energy use between 2010 and 2050 could be limited to less than 25%. For greenhouse gas emissions, this would halve the gap between the situation of unchanged policy and the 450 ppm CO2 eq mitigation scenario[5]

• Net global agricultural expansion between 2010 and 2050 may be halted, with expansion in Africa reduced by half, by improving the efficiency of agricultural production, consumption and food supply chains. Most industrialised countries and emerging economies would see a net reduction in their agricultural areas, after 2020.

• The global increase, up to 2050, in the use of phosphorus fertilisers from primary sources could be limited to 11%; mainly by making better use of manure and by recycling phosphorus from human excreta. Additional phosphorus savings could be achieved by improving animal feed and by banning the use of phosphorus in detergents.