ouE 12. 90 OfRcial]oumal of the European Communities ^oCo532B107 
Co^imonontheenvironmentalpohcy andthe 
mitianveCo^mion on environmental policy,afundamental aspect of economic and so^^ 
development) 
(90BC^2B^1) 
C0n^0januaryl990 the Economic and Social Committee, acting under the third paragraph 
of Article 20 of the Rules of Procedure, decided to draw up an additional own-initiative 
COpiniononenvironmentalpolicyand the Single European market, asafollow-uptoits 
Opinion on environmental poiicy,afundamental aspect of economic and social development. 
The Section for Protection of the Environment, Public health and Consumer Affairs, which 
was responsible for preparing the Committee^swork on the matter, adopted its Opinion on 
^September 1990.The Rapporteur was ^IrBoisseree. 
At its 279th plenary session (meetingof 19 September 1990) the Economic and Social 
committee adopted the following Opinion by77 votes to 1^, with five abstentions. 
A. EEEECPSOEP^ESl^CLEAiARKEPO^P^lE 
COA^U^lPV^viRO^A^l^T 
L Preliminary comments 
On 1^ November i9^9 the Economic and Social Com­
mittee adopted an owninitiative Opinion on environ 
mental policy,afundamental aspect of economic and 
social developments the Rapporteurwas^ir.Beretta(^). 
Phis Opinion dealt with the interactions between econ­
omics and ecologyand investigated specific problems 
arising from the incorporation of environmental policy 
into the policy on the Single European Aiarket. 
Independently of the work of the Economic and Social 
Committee, the EC Commission, on the basis of a 
decision reached at the Environment Aiinisters^ Council 
meetingof L520ctober 19^,setupatask force to 
ascertainthelikelyenvironmentaleffectsof the com­
pletion of the Internal market (froml992 onwards). 
The task force report is now available^ it was presented 
to the ESC^sSection for Protection of the Environment, 
Publicf^ealth and consumer Affairs on 11 January 
1990, withacommentary given by the task force chair­
man, Air Schneider. 
The aim of the additional ESC Opinion is to outline, 
from the viewpoint of the economic and social interests 
represented intheC^ommittee,the conflict betweena 
long-term, stronger environmentalpolicy on theone 
hand and thee^pected results of completion of the 
Single Aiarketontheother, andto suggest possible 
solutions. In particular, the use of market mechanisms 
and incentives to promote environment-friendly behav­
iour by consumers is considered.The additional Opin-
ionconcentrateson theseaspects, anddoesnotdeal 
with all the points covered in the comprehensive task 
force report. Inviewof the comprehensive approach adopted,the 
work of the task force can be compared with the 
CecchinireportontheeconomicdimensionoftheSingle 
market. Thetaskforcereport mustalso beread in 
conjunction with the Commission^swork on the follow 
mg subjects^ the environment and energy^ the environ­
ment and transports waste policy^ and the Brundtland 
Report (the findings of the U^s^orld Commission 
on the Environment and development). 
2. Points from the Heretta reports 
Eive basic points were made and developed in the 
own-initiative Opinion for which Air Berettawas the 
Rapporteurs 
— integration of environmental policy with other EC 
policies, notably the policy on the Internal Aiarket^ 
herethe^Berettareport^linksupwiththeESC^s 
Opinion on the Community^ fourth action pro­
gramme for environmental protection(^), 
— incorporation of environmental policy into the 
European Social Charter and participation by econ 
omic and social forces (including consumer and 
environmental organizations)inthe implementation 
of ^environmental policy in the Single A^arket^ 
— useofautonomousmarket guidance through the 
creation of production and consumer incentives to 
^environment-friendly^ behaviours the 5Beretta 
report^talks here ofanecessary optimization pro 
cess, 
— creation ofaEuropean environment fund to carry 
out the environmental policy tasks which the A^iem-
ber States cannot manage alone, 
— improvementof thePreaty basisforaEuropean 
environmental policy in theSingleA^larket, i.e. clari-
ficationoftherelationshipbetween Article 100A 
^oj^oe^D57^m^ ^^o^o^^^^^m^^D^. 
No C 332/108 Official Journal of the European Communities 31. 12. 90 
and Articles 130R ff. of the EEC Treaty, and intro­
duction of a true majority-decision principle for 
environmental measures {cf. Article 130S (2), EEC 
Treaty). 
3. Points from the task force report 
3.1. The report on The Environment and the Internal 
Market (1992 and the Environment) drawn up for the 
Commission and hereinafter referred to as the 'task 
force report', has been submitted to the Commission 
for consideration; the Commission intends to submit 
its conclusions to the Council of Ministers. 
Whatever the tenor of the Commission's conclusions 
and any Council decision, it appears correct to use 
the task force report as a starting-point for the ESC's 
observations. 
3.2. The task force report contains the following 
points of relevance to the own-initiative Opinion: 
a) The importance of 'quality of life' and the environ­
ment for the success of the Single Market. 
b) The point that the Single Market will bring with it 
deregulation and economic growth which will give 
rise to additional environmental problems unless 
major changes are made in the EC's environmental 
policy. The task force report estimates that the 
completion of the Single Market will lead to: 
— an 8-9% increase in SO, and NOx emissions by 
2010, an increase of 12-14% above the levels 
which would otherwise have been reached, 
— a 30% to 50% increase in commercial vehicle 
traffic, 
— a widening gap between the amount of waste 
generated and the capacity of refuse tips, 
— an increase in the level of agricultural pollution, 
— an increase in tourism which may further dam­
age the environment unless it is structured in an 
environmentally compatible way. 
The following observations made in the task force 
report illustrate the reasons for the environmental prob­
lems posed by the Single Market: 
— The expected increase in energy consumption will, 
given the current generating structures, lead to 
increased air pollution, a worsening of the green­
house effect and an increase in the use of hazardous 
forms of technology unless appropriate compensa­
tory measures are taken (the achievement of energy savings through more efficient energy generation 
and conversion, quantitive savings on the consump­
tion side, and changes in the energy generating 
structure, e.g. increased use of renewable sources of 
energy). 
— The increased price competition faced by railways 
as a result of the liberalization of goods transport 
may well cause a swing to road transport (30-
50% increase of the latter); this will bring about a 
dramatic increase in damage to the environment. 
— If the liberalization of waste disposal in the wake 
of the completion of the Internal Market is not 
accompanied by the introduction of adequate stan­
dards governing the disposal and avoidance of 
waste, this is bound to lead to the shuttling of 
refuse to countries which have the cheapest disposal 
facilities; the associated transport and transhipment 
will produce additional environmental hazards and 
undermine attempts to avoid waste. 
— The shift in price relationships associated with the 
Single Market threatens to stimulate environmental­
ly harmful practices. 
— The locational changes resulting from market inte­
gration may have major environmental conse­
quences, (e.g. risks posed by further concentration). 
c) Starting from this prognosis, the task force report 
investigates the following questions: 
— the conditions which need to be met if the link­
age between economic growth and environmen­
tal degradation is to be broken, 
— the opportunities provided by the completion of 
the single market for the development and use 
of environment-friendly technologies and, 
consequently, for improved environmental pro­
tection, 
— the role in the new environmental strategy for 
'economic instruments of environmental policy' 
and the conclusions which may be drawn from 
this strategy in respect of the harmonization of 
the tax and levy systems in the EC which is 
currently in the pipeline, 
— the environmental policy strategies which will 
need to be developed in order to meet the chal­
lenges posed by the Single Market and at the 
same time coordinate efforts to resolve Euro­
pean and regional problems, 
— the possibilities for using the extended EC Struc­
tural Fund to promote environmental policy, or, 
at all events, to prevent the Fund being used to 
promote environmentally undesirable develop­
ments. 
d) Finally, the task force report examines the import­
ance of the underlying principles of European 
environment policy in the Single Market: 
— the 'polluter pays' principle, 
31. 12. 90 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 332/109 
— the prevention principle, 
— the principle of subsidiarity, 
— the principle of cost-effectiveness. 
4. Assessment of the task force report 
4.1. The Committee broadly welcomes the task force 
report. The report contains an accurate analysis of the 
current situation with regard to the environment and 
the probable future situation. It is abundantly clear 
from the report that there is an urgent need to take 
action in the field of environmental policy in parallel 
with the moves towards the completion of the Single 
Market. The report deserves to be used as one of the 
bases for EC environmental policy for the 1990s. 
4.2. Correctly, the 'polluter pays' principle is the 
focal point for the views on environmental policy 
expressed in the report. The need for the polluter 
(manufacturer, carrier, consumer) to pay for damage 
to the environment is recognized. The report confines 
itself to describing various market economy instruments 
of environmental policy. No concrete proposals are 
put forward as regards the action to be taken. The 
Committee has therefore also referred to the report 
of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and 
Development (OECD) on economic instruments for 
promoting environmental protection (Paris 1989). 
4.3. The Committee also welcomes the fact that the 
task force report gives priority to the incorporation of 
environmental protection measures in the production 
process, rather than post-production, damage-repair 
environmental protection measures (end-of-pipe tech­
nology). Unfortunately plans for the individual problem 
sectors (transport, energy, agriculture, the chemical 
industry, tourism) are still conspicuous by their absence. 
Such plans are all the more important in view of the 
fact that integrated environmental protection is not yet 
a feature of EC environmental policy which contains 
virtually no strategy for avoiding environmental pol­
lution. 
B. A NEW EUROPEAN ENVIRONMENTAL 
POLICY 
5. Principles for a new EC environmental policy 
5.1. The situation of environmental crisis facing 
Europe calls for structural changes geared towards the 
protection of the environment and new qualitative yard­
sticks, such as the economical, efficient use of limited 
resources. Priority in this context must be given to the 
goal of long-term environmentally and socially sustain­
able development (*), without sacrificing the tried and 
tested economic system of Wester Europe. 
(*) See the report of the 'World Commission on the Environment 
and Development' for the UN General Assembly of 1987. In addition to gross national product, which has hith­
erto been used as the yardstick for welfare, quality-of-
life yardsticks should be developed. The Committee 
recognizes the problems involved in quantifying the 
quality of the environment, especially in view of the 
problem of international comparability. A new EC 
environmental policy must, however, be evolved so as 
to ensure that economic growth does not invariably 
lead to an increase in environmental pollution, but is 
compatible with the reduction of such pollution (break­
ing the link between economic growth and damage to 
the environment). 
5.2. The need for action is so great that all possible 
technical and organizational means of drastically reduc­
ing pollutant emissions must be employed. There is 
broad agreement among experts that the following 
target values can be attained by the stated deadlines: 
There will have to be an 80-90 % cut in levels of S02, 
NOx and NH3 and particles and dust if soil acidification 
and ozone formation are to be checked. If the green­
house effect is to be combated, C02 emissions will have 
to be reduced by 30-40% by 2005 and by at least 50% 
within the next 40 years. Discharges into the aquatic 
environment of the 129 substances listed as particularly 
dangerous by the Commission will have to be halted. 
Measures must also be taken to prevent emissions of 
carcinogens. Finally, the amount of special category 
waste will have to be cut by 50 % by the year 2000. 
5.3. The new environmental policy should take 
account of the fact that environmental protection and 
economic development are not necessarily contradic­
tory; common interests arise in many cases, particularly 
in the context of economic groups. The following 
examples may be quoted: 
— The dependence of major economic factors (e.g. the 
need for good housing with recreation areas in the 
immediate vicinity) and sectors (e.g. tourism) on the 
preservation of attractive areas by means of an 
active EC environmental policy; it is not just the 
threat to human beings and nature which is import­
ant here but also other forms of nuisance which 
cause stress and reduce the attractiveness of regions. 
— The relevance of a tougher, improved environmen­
tal policy to the development of advanced environ­
mental technology in the Community, thereby pro­
viding improved trading opportunities for the Com­
munity on the world market (through the export of 
environment-friendly technology). 
— The positive impact of a more stringent environ­
mental policy on the labor market (2), at least in 
certain economic sectors. 
(2) Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 
environment and employment (OJ No C 319, 30.11.1987). 
No C 332/110 Official Journal of the European Communities 31. 12. 90 
5.4. If we are to maintain the basic living conditions 
and the living environment of the people of Europe in 
the next century, ambitious objectives will have to be 
set for environmental policy in the 1990s. To this end 
it will be necessary not only to ensure that the specific 
environmental quality objectives keep pace with eco­
logical legislation and the latest technological develop­
ments, but also to undertake a thorough review of 
environmental policy instruments. A distinction has to 
be drawn between: 
a) Regulatory provisions (standards in respect of emis­
sions, manufacturing processes and products) which 
have hitherto been the main features of EC Directive 
and national legislation; this category also includes 
(i) the measures to be taken to prevent plant break­
downs and (ii) emergency measures in the event of 
industrial accidents and general disasters. 
b) Economic instruments of environmental policy (i.e. 
the introduction of more flexible environmental 
protection standards and environmental levies, the 
assessment of taxes and consumer charges on the 
basis of environmental yardsticks, grants from pub­
lic funds, civil liability for environmental damage 
and the introduction of recycling systems). 
These economic instruments have yet to be intro­
duced or officially proposed in the context of EC 
environmental policy (with the exception of the 
draft Directive on civil liability for damage caused 
by waste (*) EC and non-EC States have limited 
experience in this field (see the abovementioned 
OECD report). 
c) Environmental policy considerations playing a role 
in measures and other decisions taken by the public 
authorities such as: 
— decisions in respect of public-sector infrastruc­
ture projects at EC, national or local level (e.g. 
transport infrastructure projects). 
— setting of environmental policy priorities in pub­
lic budgets (e.g. low fares to encourage the use 
of public transport for short journeys); 
d) Other environmental policy instruments: 
— the promotion of environment-friendly pro­
duction processes through plant-level reorgan­
ization and publicity campaigns, 
— the promotion of environment-friendly behav­
iour, for example through information and 
training and school and extra-curricular instruc­
tion, 
— the promotion of environmental protection by 
measures to strengthen environmental associ­
ations and all other organizations concerned 
with the environment and related issues. 
(*) OJ No C 251, 4. 10. 1989. 5.5. In the Single Market, environment policy will 
continue to rely on a combination of traditional and 
new instruments. These instruments should be geared, 
in particular, to establishing sustainable, environmen­
tally-compatible supply structures in the environmental 
problem sectors—energy, transport, agriculture, chemi­
cal industry. Efficiency, effectiveness and social com­
patibility can only be achieved by a mix of regulatory 
measures, state investment in infrastructure, market-
economy incentives and voluntary example-setting 
action by consumers and industry. The right mixture 
will vary from economic sector to economic sector. 
a) In the Single Market there will be a need for tougher 
emission and product standards, and for dynamic 
up-to-date limits on emissions, particularly in cases 
where human beings and their environment have to 
be protected from serious hazards. This will mean 
not only the adaptation of limit values and stan­
dards to state-of-the-art technology, but also a 
review of the concepts underlying individual areas 
of Community environmental policy legislation (a 
radical overhaul of the EC's waste-management pol­
icy, with the accent being placed on avoiding waste, 
is for example one of the tasks which will have to 
be carried out). It will also be necessary to ensure 
tighter supervision by the authorities and at plant 
level of all sources of discharge and the effective 
control of all emissions and to draw up contingency 
plans for plant breakdowns, accidents and disasters; 
such events frequently cause serious environmental 
damage in the absence of emergency services. The 
Council of Ministers will have to take a decision 
on whether to delegate the adoption of technical 
environmental standards to boards of experts (2); 
environmental associations and the other organiz­
ations referred to in 5.4.d) should be adequately 
represented on such boards. In setting-up regulatory 
instruments of environmental policy, due account 
will have to be taken of spatial interdependence and 
the interdependency of the different media (particu­
larly water, air and soil) to be protected; environ­
mental pollution after all knows no frontiers. East­
ern Europe in particular has an enormous amount 
of ground to catch up in environmental protection. 
Unless improvements in these countries receive vig­
orous support, even the stringent measures adopted 
in the Community may be less effective than antici­
pated. 
b) The new economic instruments should also be used 
not only to make expenditure on environmental 
protection more economic, but also to mobilize 
reserves of efficiency in environmental policy. 
(2) See the Resolution of the Council of Ministers of 7 May 1985 
entitled 'A New Approach to Technical Harmonization and 
Standards' (OJ No C 136, 9. 6. 1985). 
31. 12. 90 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 332/111 
c) The two methods could be combined by setting 
limit values and standards at a high minimum level 
and using incentives (economic instruments) to ach­
ieve aims (the reduction of 'residual' pollution) 
which go beyond the minimum standards. In select­
ing environmental policy methods, the target should 
be to get the best returns from minimum expendi­
ture in the shortest possible time. It has to be borne 
in mind, however, that in the case of economic 
instruments, too, a certain amount of administrat­
ive work is required at national or local authority 
level (e.g. emissions have to be monitored before 
emission taxes can be calculated). Self-regulation, 
as in the case of the self-regulation of markets, is 
not feasible in the field of environmental protection 
(notwithstanding the proposals made in point 6.3). 
d) In the comments set out below the Committee 
assesses only the new environmental policy instru­
ments and in particular the economic instruments. 
These instruments should be concentrated on the 
problem areas highlighted in the task force report, 
in particular energy, transport, chemicals and agri­
culture. 
6. The introduction of more flexible environmental 
protection requirements 
6.1. The use of economic instruments in the pursuit 
of environmental policy also includes the adoption of 
a more flexible approach with regard to the implemen­
tation of standards in particular regional areas. This 
would involve, e.g., measures to offset emissions. Under 
these provisions undertakings in defined areas would 
be able to form groups for the purposes of implementing 
environmental protection measures. Such groups could 
be established and authorized by the authorities on the 
grounds of regional and economic expediency, provided 
that overall regional environmental objectives were 
achieved. Such a step would enable the optimum cost-
benefit ratio to be achieved. It is particularly desirable 
when it serves to promote integrated environmental 
protection (see point 4.3 above). 
6.2. Mention is often made in this context of the 
introduction of emission licences which are available 
for purchase. The application of this scheme in the US 
has met with a varied response but assessments have 
been mostly critical, especially because of its very lim­
ited scope. Such provisions would, however, only be 
applicable as a back-up to regulatory economic measur­
es and subject to the proviso that the emission limits 
involved were periodically reduced so as to enable a 
dynamic environmental policy to be pursued. 
In view of its concern that the offer for sale of emission 
licences would serve to transfer responsibility for 
environmental policy (a form of privatization), the 
Committee rejected this system in its Opinion on the 
4th environmental action programme. 
6.3. A number of Member States have had favour­
able experiences with a system of voluntary agreements 
between the authorities and individual undertakings or whole sectors of industry or commerce with a view to 
meeting environmental requirements. The responsi­
bility of the public authorities for environmental protec­
tion must of course not be undermined by these arrange­
ments. By adopting such measures it is however often 
possible, by means of self-regulation, to implement 
environmental protection measures more effectively 
and to introduce regulations at an earlier date. Gener­
ally speaking, the EC should encourage such agree­
ments. 
A further example of such cooperation are installations 
operated jointly by businesses, such as installations for 
handling or recycling waste or manufacturing residues 
('recycling agencies'). 
7. Environment levies and environment taxes 
7.1. Environment levies and environment taxes (i.e. 
taxes assessed or differentiated on the basis of environ­
mental criteria) differ from one another in that the 
revenue from environment levies does not form part of 
the general national budget but is used for separate 
purposes whereas the income generated by environment 
taxes is regarded as general taxation income, even 
though the level of the tax is determined by environmen­
tal criteria. There are also hybrid schemes combining 
environment taxes and environment levies, such as spe­
cial taxes whose main purpose is to influence the behav­
iour of manufacturers and consumers. 
Despite this distinction, environment levies and 
environment taxes are usually dealt with together as 
economic instruments of environmental policy. From 
a general point of view environment taxes have an 
advantage in that they require less additional adminis­
trative work because they are linked to the general 
taxation system. Environment levies, on the other hand, 
require a separate assessment and payment system. 
7.2. The purpose of environment levies and taxes is 
to provide manufacturers and consumers with incen­
tives to adopt environment-friendly manufacturing pro­
cesses and patterns of consumption. This is achieved 
by means of an environmental price mechanism, where­
by the costs to be met as a result of economic activity 
are attributed to those who bring about such costs (in 
accordance with the extended 'polluter pays principle'). 
Environment levies and taxes must be pitched at a level 
which is high enough to make them bite and lead to 
changes in behaviour. 
Environment taxes and levies require the introduction 
of parallel measures to ensure that economically weaker 
sections of the population are not placed at a disadvan­
tage. Such measures are best implemented by promoting 
and extending the use of the environmentally-accept­
able and relatively inexpensive alternatives to environ­
mentally-damaging practices. It would be inappropriate 
to introduce such compensation measures on social 
grounds as they would serve to weaken the incentive 
effects of environment levies or taxes. 
Environment taxes and levies cannot produce immedi­
ate effects; they have to be regarded as a long-term 
strategy, in particular because of the need to calculate 
investment decisions on a long-term basis. 
No C 332/112 Official Journal of the European Communities 31. 12. 90 
Environment taxes and levies are no panacea. There 
are a large number of cases in which the behaviour of 
manufacturers and comsumers can be more effectively 
influenced by prohibitions and other regulatory meas­
ures. 
7.3. The main forms of environment levies are emis­
sion levies (in respect of water and air) (*) or waste 
levies (dumping levies). Calculation of the rate of the 
levies is a difficult issue. The levies must be set at a 
level high enough to exert an influence on the behaviour 
of manufacturers. The level must, however, not be so 
high as to constitute an effective ban on the process or 
product, concerned. The range of levies currently being 
charged is clearly illustrated by the considerable differ­
ence in the level of waste-water levies throughout the 
Community (for example, certain rates in the Nether­
lands are fifteen times higher than in the Federal Repub­
lic of Germany). At the same time, attention should be 
paid to regional differences when calculating the levies. 
A particular rate of levy will be less effective in some 
parts of the EC than in others. 
If emission levies are to be genuinely effective their level 
should be determined by the marginal costs of anti­
pollution measures occasioned by emission levels in 
excess of the limit values. These emission levies should 
therefore be designed as levies on pollution caused by 
residues and should provide incentives to improve the 
state of the art. 
Emission levies will only be meaningful if all environ­
mental media are treated in the same way so as to avoid 
the transfer of pollution from expensive to 'cheap' 
environmental media. 
As regards environment levies, EC framework directives 
or recommendations should be issued which take into 
account experience gained in EC Member States and 
non-EC countries and leave sufficient room for 
manoeuvre to take account of regional differences. Such 
EC instruments should set out principles for the pur­
poses of: 
— determining the extent of the levy, which should 
be linked to emission standards (levy on pollution 
caused by residues), 
— ensuring that, once the purpose of the levy has been 
achieved (reduction in emission levels), the levy is 
cancelled and not converted into a revenue tax, 
— providing for the use of sums generated by such 
levies to finance environmental investment, particu­
larly local-authority schemes, environmental pro­
tection in the Third World and tax-relief in respect 
of environmentally-acceptable forms of production 
of consumption. 
(*) Sweden is planning measures including an SO, emission tax 
based on the marginal costs of avoiding such emission: in 
order to comply with Swedish clean-air provisions the costs 
would be 4 600 ECU/t. 7.4. A more important Community issue in the Com­
mittee's view is the differentiation of existing taxes on 
environmental grounds, (e.g. the taxes on petroleum 
and gas) or the introduction of new special environment 
taxes (e.g. a tax on packaging). There is a need for EC 
harmonization of these taxes in connection with the 
general harmonization of excise duties and turnover 
taxes. 
A priority issue for the Committee is the introduction 
of greater differentiation on environmental grounds in 
the case of taxes on energy. As part of a strategy to 
achieve structural change in the environmental field, 
energy taxes are of major importance as a means of 
promoting the use and earlier marketing of energy-
and mateiral-saving technologies. Energy taxes should 
provide incentives for increased efficiency in energy 
conversion and consumption and incentives to ensure 
that decisions with regard to increasing efficiency rather 
than expanding capacity are part of a rational environ­
mentally desirable process. 
Assessment on environmental grounds should be con­
sidered first of all in the case of taxes on petroleum. 
Such taxes would provide incentives for the develop­
ment of alternative products and alternative patterns 
of consumption (e.g. with regard to transport). Con­
sideration should also be given to the possible taxation 
of other fossil fuels. Here too, however, attention must 
be paid to the considerable regional differences if the 
tax is to be pitched at the right level. Taxes on electricity 
consumption (irrespective of the primary energy source 
used) should be regarded only as a complementary 
measure with a view to achieving improved efficiency 
in the use of electricity, thereby helping to save energy. 
In the context of the Commission's current examination 
of tax harmonization, the Committee would point out 
that: 
— The Commission is considering levying a reduced 
rate of Value Added Tax (VAT) on energy products 
(e.g. heating fuels); there are environmental objec­
tions to such a plan, as a reduced rate of taxation 
would undermine endeavours to bring about 
improved efficiency. Bringing down energy con­
sumption by means of insulation will turn out to 
be cheaper than paying a reduced rate of tax. 
— The taxes on petroleum should take account of the 
highest rates currently set in the EC so as to give 
the individual Member States the greatest possible 
scope for levying 'green' taxes on petroleum and 
the additional tax revenue should be earmarked for 
environmental protection. 
— When harmonizing petroleum taxes, steps should 
be taken to ensure that taxes on diesel oil are 
increased at least to the same extent as those on 
petroleum in view of the fact that diesel-powered 
vehicles are in no way less damaging to the environ­
ment then petrol-engined vehicles, particularly if 
they are not fitted with catalytic converters. 
31. 12. 90 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 332/113 
— It is frequently proposed that motor-vehicle taxes, 
in those Member States where they exist, be 
replaced by an increased rate of tax on petroleum 
so as to enable motor-vehicle users to have a realistic 
understanding of the actual cost of the journeys 
they make. The Committee would, however, point 
out that this would preclude the differentiation of 
motor-vehicle taxes on environmental grounds, 
which has proved successful in some Member States. 
7.5. In the light of the foregoing, the ESC rec­
ommends that consideration be given to the possibility 
of introducing the following environmental taxes and 
levies: 
— energy taxes (see point 7.4, third paragraph), 
— taxes on discharges of S02, Nox and dust into the 
atmosphere, 
— waste-water levies, in accordance with the degree 
of pollution, 
— levies on certain types of packaging and on danger­
ous waste, 
— levies on artificial (industrially produced) fertilizers 
(nitrogen and phosphate levies) in the context of an 
environmentally-orientated revamping of European 
agricultural policy, 
— a chlorine tax, as an incentive for the development 
of substitutes for chlorinated hydrocarbons. 
8. Further economic instruments of environmental 
policy 
a) These instruments include obligations on producers 
or dealers to take back packaging that is no longer 
required. This can be facilitated by a deposit system. 
From the environmental standpoint, it is essential 
that such deposit return systems be made compul­
sory if the dramatically worsening problems associ­
ated with disposal are to be solved. The aim must 
be to: 
— dispense with superfluous packaging, 
— influence the nature and volume of packaging 
materials with a view to reducing disposal prob­
lems, 
— intensify waste recycling, 
— promote alternative products. 
In environmental discussions, proposals have been 
put forward for the introduction of an obligation 
to take back even long-life goods (such as motor 
vehicles), in order to promote the development of 
more easily disposable products. 
Whilst the ESC is aware of the organizational prob­
lems which the obligation to take back products 
can create for small and medium-sized businesses, 
it feels that these can be solved on the basis of 
cooperation between the latter and industry and, 
where necessary, with the support of the public 
authorities. b) A further example of an economic instrument of 
environmental policy is the introduction of no-fault 
liability for environmental damage, irrespective of 
responsibility; this would ensure that special care 
is taken with potentially harmful activities, with 
consequent benefits for the environment. 
In this connection, reference should be made to the 
Committee's Opinion on the proposal for a Council 
Directive on civil liability for damage caused by 
waste and, in particular, to the call for a compen­
sation fund for unattributable damage (e.g. long-
established dumps) and damage for which responsi­
bility cannot be assigned. Precautionary measures 
by the polluter groups concerned can reduce the 
compulsory contribution to such a fund, thereby 
reinforcing the 'polluter pays' principle (l). 
c) There are objections under competition law to the 
provision of State aid for the rehabilitation of poten­
tially harmful manufacturing processes. The pro­
vision of assistance or tax relief for having simply 
complied with this general requirement is objection­
able in that it conflicts with the 'polluter pays' 
principe; such objections could however be ignored 
when technological conditions in less-developed 
regions or acknowledged problem areas are to be 
adopted (see ESC Opinion on the draft Commission 
Decision on a programme of regional actions 
designed to contribute to the protection of the 
environement and to promote socio-economic 
development) (2). 
d) Consumer charges (for water and electricity) should 
be calculated on the basis of environmental yard­
sticks [e.g. amending energy tariffs so that increased 
consumption is charged at higher rather than lower 
rates (see the Committee's Opinion on the fourth 
action programme)] (3). 
(*) OJ No C 112, 7. 5. 1990 
(2) OJ No C 112, 7. 5. 1990, p. 28 — ENVIREG 
(3) See OJ No C 180, 8. 7. 1987, p. 29. It is stated in point 2.1.3.5 
of the Committee's Opinion that: 
'With regard to the coordination of environmental policy and 
energy policy, the Committee highlights the urgency of the 
measures to improve the efficiency of energy conversion and 
energy use. Improved efficiency is essential here if environ­
mental protection and resource-conservation are to be com­
patible with maintenance of living standards. Measures to 
secure an economically sound and environmentally acceptable 
combination of heat and power production in electricity 
generation should be promoted. 
Concessionary tariffs for increased consumption of power, 
heat, water, etc., should be discontinued. The Commission 
should draw up draft models for a tariff structure geared to 
the environmental requirements of the Communtiy. This does 
not of course mean that the Committee wants to see tariffs 
for major consumers abolished.' 
No C 332/114 Official Journal of the European Communities 31. 12. 90 
9. Back-up measures 
9.1. Environment policy instruments based on levies 
and prices are inadequate where problems result from, 
or can be resolved by, State action (e.g. on infrastruc­
tures), or in the case of monopolies, which do not 
respond flexibly to price signals; centralism at company 
and national level can represent a fundamental obstacle 
to the decision-making flexibility which economic 
instruments of environmental policy are designed to 
ensure. 
9.2. Land-use and planning decisions by Member 
States and local authorities have a special role to play in 
the influencing of environmental policy through public-
sector infrastructure measures. Such decisions point the 
way to future transport infrastructure projects. The EC 
has so far had no direct influence in this matter. It is 
only through EC programmes, in particular the 
Regional Fund, and, to some extent, competition policy, 
that an influence can be brought to bear on decisions 
taken by the public authorities in the environmental 
field. 
The balance between environment policy and Internal 
Market policy called for in the task force report can be 
achieved only if EC measures are subjected to environ­
mental quality controls (evaluation of the environmen­
tal compatibility of EC programmes and laws: cf. ESC 
Opinion on the fourth action programme) (x); only in 
that way can integration of environment strategy in the 
other policy areas be guaranteed. This will involve, for 
example, the promotion of public, and in particular rail-
borne transport as well as inland shipping on existing 
waterways. It will also necessitate the amendment of 
the rules governing Community aid and European 
Investment Bank (EIB) loans to certain economic sectors 
so as to promote environmentally acceptable behaviour 
rather than harmful manufacturing processes. The 
Environment Agency now being set up should play a 
major part in the evaluation of all Community policies 
from the environmental standpoint. 
This incorporation of environmental policy consider­
ations into EC regional policy should extend as far as 
enabling the Community to refrain from providing 
aid for regional infrastructure in Member States (on a 
percentage basis) in cases where no environmentally 
compatible projects are submitted for aid. 
Consideration should also be given to determining 
whether an EC land-use policy will not require Com­
munity framework directives dealing with environmen­
tally-compatible land-use planning, particularly in 
cross-frontier regions, and whether provisions should 
not be made for Community intervention only of course 
after amendments have been made to the EC Treaties 
—in individual cases relating to supra-regional issues. 
(!) OJ No C 180, 8. 7. 1987, p. 26. Such framework directives shouid be limited to land-
use planning procedures, which lay down minimum 
environmental criteria. Community responsibility for 
land-use policy should strengthen local consideration 
of the environmental dimension and not conflict with 
the principle of subsidiarity. 
9.3. If the objective stated in the task force report is 
to be attained, it will be essential to: 
— Assist businesses and public bodies which are obli­
ged to undergo a thorough overhaul to meet 
environmental demands but which lack the necess­
ary funds, in the context of the Community's differ­
ent support schemes, particularly ENVIREG. 
— Increase Community funding for the promotion of 
research and development (R&D) in environmental 
technology, environmental management and tech­
nology transfer; such a concentration of R&D 
resources would be commensurate with the inte­
gration of environmental and research policy (2). 
— Improve the provision of information on the use of 
new technologies and 'clean' products and other 
measures to promote environmental awareness and 
environmentally acceptable products. 
— Promote general environmental awareness among 
the population, particularly through advice and 
information on environmentally-acceptable behav­
iour and products (involving, for example, labelling 
and the granting of bonuses); when decisions are 
being taken at EC level with regard to authorization 
to use 'environmental marking' (or the introduction 
of environmental labels), environmental compati­
bility should be assessed not only on the basis of 
the use of the product in question and the arrange­
ments for disposing of used products but also on 
the basis of the effects on the environment of the 
manufacture, marketing, etc., of the product. 
— Strengthen the role of environmental associations 
and other organizations with an interest in environ­
mental policy; for this purpose, these associations 
must have access to environmental information (e.g. 
records) from official sources including the Com­
munity^). 
— Improve awareness of environmental policy 
achievements and shortcomings through the presen­
tation of company and local environmental audits 
by businesses and public bodies and annual environ­
mental reports; promote the establishment of volun­
tary funds which can offer private loans for environ­
mental investment projects. 
(2) See ESC Opinion on the 'Specific programme of research 
and technological development (R&TD) in the field of the 
environment' (CES 1054/90). 
(3) See ESC Opinion on the Council Directive on freedom of 
access to information on the environment (OJ No C 139/89, 
P- 47). 
31. 12. 90 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 332/115 
— Strengthen the role of employees and their represen­
tative organizations in in-house environmental man­
agement. This will necessitate the instruction and 
further training of staff and the appointment both 
of environmental officers from among the workfor­
ce and committees responsible for promoting 
environmental awareness within the company. The­
se environmental officers and committees must be in 
a position to make assessments—which may involve 
the use of cost-benefit analyses—of the in-house 
measures carried out, to monitor the observance of 
environmental protection regulations and to bring 
about changes in in-house environmental manage­
ment. 
10. Towards the achievement of a 'European Environ­
mental Community' 
10.1. The aim of the new environmental policy in 
the Community must be to bring about, particularly in 
view of the impending introduction of the single mar­
ket, a swith-over to 'sustainable development'. The 
Committee therefore calls on the Commission to take 
account of the abovementioned new environmental-
policy principles in preparing a 'fifth action programme 
for environmental protection'. 
10.2. If such a step sets the EC on the road towards 
establishing an 'environmental Community' it will be 
necessary to examine the current basic treaty provisions 
to see whether they provide enough scope for such a 
development. 
In the light of the experience gained in recent years, 
and despite the clear progress recorded since the Single 
European Act came into force, the Committee would 
draw attention to the following problems: 
a) There is a need to clarify the relation between 
Article 100A and Article DOR et seq. of the EEC 
Treaty {cf. also the Beretta report). 
b) In the case of decisions taken under Article 130R et 
seq. of the EEC Treaty majority voting should be 
introduced; the need for a preliminary unanimous 
decision by the Council of Ministers, as currently 
required, should be abolished. The current pro­
cedure has hardly been used; in many cases environ­
mental policy measures have been adopted on the 
basis of Article 100A. The Council is already in a 
position to open the way to majority decisions with 
regard to concrete issues by using the provisions of 
Article DOS. A clear provision to this effect would 
Done at Brussels, 19 September 1990. however be more advantageous. The procedure for 
cooperation between the Commission and Parlia­
ment could also promote this environmental policy. 
c) Consideration should be given to empowering the 
EEC to act in the field of land-use planning (see 
point 9.2 above). 
d) Subsidiarity will play a role in environment policy 
in the Single Market. Whether or not priority is 
given to the centralization or decentralization of 
power will have to be decided from case to case, in 
the light of the different situations in different parts 
of the Community. Article 130R (4) of the EEC 
Treaty basically calls for application of the principle 
of subsidiarity when measures are taken at Com­
munity level. Experience shows that advances in the 
Community's environmental policy are very fre­
quently attributable to the fact that further-reaching 
initiatives have been taken at national level. Of 
course the principle of subsidiarity has to be 
weighed against the risk of distortions of compe­
tition in the internal market {cf. Article 100A (4) of 
the EEC Treaty) (*). In order to avoid complicated 
disputes involving the Member States, the Com­
mission and also the Council of Ministers, there is 
a need for this issue to be more clearly defined in 
the Treaty itself, taking into account regional and 
inter-regional priorities. The Committee put for­
ward a number of proposals on this matter in its 
Opinion on the fourth action programme (points 
1.4 and 2.1.1.5 of the Opinion of 13 May 1987, CES 
482/87). 
e) The integration of environmental policy with other 
areas of Community policy should lead to improved 
coordination within the Commission. 
f) As the Committee has already had occasion to sug­
gest^) in certain emergency situations and with 
regard to specific environmental matters, the Com­
munity should use Regulations rather than Direc­
tives. 
10.3. The Committee calls for the points raised 
above to be taken into consideration in the negotiations 
currently getting underway with regard to a further 
revision of the Treaty. 
(*) In this connection it is interesting to note that the European 
Court of Justice gave preference to protection of the environ­
ment over the dismantling of trade barriers in the ruling on the 
'bottle deposit and return system', case 302/86—Judgement of 
20 August 1988. 
(2) OJ No C 225,10. 9. 1990, p. 14. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alberto MASPRONE