Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the 'Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on cohesion policy and the environment` (97/C 34/05)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

Having regard to the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on Cohesion Policy and the Environment (COM(95) 509 final);

Having regard to the decision of the European Commission of 17 January 1996 to consult the Committee of the Regions;

Having regard to the decision of the Committee of the Regions of 17 January 1996, to instruct Commission 5 to prepare the Opinion in cooperation with Commissions 1, 2, and 8;

Having regard to the Draft Opinion of Commission 5, adopted on 27 June 1996 (Rapporteur: Mr Palaiologos, Co-Rapporteur: Mr Lafay) (CdR 134/96 rev. 2),

adopted the following Opinion unanimously at its 14th Plenary Session of 18 and 19 September 1996 (meeting of 19 September).

1. Introduction

The draft Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on Cohesion Policy and the Environment examines the developing relationship between cohesion and environmental policy and describes existing options for securing greater synergy between them in the implementation of Structural Fund programmes and the work of the Cohesion Fund.

The Communication is based on Community environmental policy as derived from:

- the Single European Act and the Treaty on European Union [provisions of Articles 2 and 130r (2)];

- the Community Programme on the Environment - Towards Sustainability;

- the revised Structural Funds Regulations of 1993;

- the Cohesion Fund Regulations.

2. General comments

2.1. Compared with the past, an improvement has unarguably occurred in the area of environmental concern. This improvement is clearly evident in both the rules and action of the Structural Funds and other Financial Instruments, and the programming documents of the new Community support frameworks (1994-1999) agreed with the Member States.

2.2. The Committee of the Regions considers that protecting and enhancing the environment, as well as reducing the disparities in the environmental situations of different regions, are necessary preconditions for a successful cohesion policy.

2.3. Furthermore, the COR believes that the solution of sustainable development is the only way, although it is hindered by the existence of major developmental inequalities between the regions. The term 'sustainable development` means a development model which both reflects and makes appropriate use of all the morphological, cultural and environmental features of each region together with its productive structure, historical heritage and natural and human resources.

2.4. The Commission Communication identifies gaps in practice to date and states its intention to adopt measures in this regard. However, the COR feels that practical, specialized and specific commitments are required if the European Union's environmental policy is to be effective.

2.5. The proportion of environmental works financed by the Structural Funds remains generally low. The COR wonders whether the overall funds made available are sufficient to reduce regional disparities. Environmental protection and economic and social cohesion are directly linked with the transfer of resources towards disadvantaged regions.

The COR supports the European Parliament in its questioning, voiced in Resolution A4-0126/95, as to whether the budgetary resources allocated to the Cohesion Fund can go far enough in helping the recipient Member States to meet the convergence criteria.

2.6. For a fuller evaluation of the results of policy to date, an assessment would be needed of data for environmental actions within the framework of the Community Initiatives and other Community interventions (e.g. the LIFE financial instrument) and, similarly, of data on actions with indirectly beneficial results for the environment.

2.7. The COR believes that it is up to the Commission to ensure that all Member States fulfil their obligations under Community environment law, including those in respect of financing measures taken under the structural and cohesion funds.

As the COR has already highlighted in an earlier Opinion (), it is inadmissible for differences to exist between regions where environmental protection is concerned. Respect for the principle of subsidiarity must never give rise to interpretations which downgrade the Community's environmental action.

The Committee would also stress that environmental regulation must be designed as a minimum, allowing Member States and regions to set stricter standards than those laid down by Community rules, where local factors so require.

2.8. Given that many of the important decisions on the environment are taken at local level, and given the obligations arising from Article 4 of the main Regulation governing the Structural Funds (), the COR takes the view that the relevant local authorities must be regarded as a third partner which, together with the national government and the European Union, plans and implements the policy on cohesion and the environment.

Unfortunately, there is no mention in the Communication of a procedure for increasing the involvement of the local and regional authorities in taking such decisions.

2.9. The COR feels that, for cohesion policy to succeed, environment and structural policy must be specifically designed to halt the continual environmental deterioration in the poorer regions in particular.

3. Specific comments

3.1. Regional development and the environment

3.1.1. It is noted that some major transport infrastructure works among the trans-European networks are not backed up by the most accurate possible assessment of the external effects from either the environmental or the socio-economic point of view. It is probable that these works will bring about a significant intensification and diversification of economic activity: this will be accompanied by changes in employment and demographic patterns and by secondary effects on the environment.

3.1.2. Since the environment is a factor of major importance in regional development, as concluded in the Commission Communication, the realization that local initiatives on development and employment should be especially encouraged is a positive one. However, steps must be taken to ensure that account is taken of the environmental dimension in such initiatives.

3.1.3. The management of natural resources is effectively a major issue requiring the definition of guidelines to drive Union policy. The various Member States and regions are faced with particular environmental conditions which limit chances for development and impose a particular management approach to natural resources.

3.1.4. The environmental sector can indeed provide a source of new employment. The COR would draw special attention, from this point of view, to the Local Development and Employment Initiatives. The Commission Communication on a European Strategy for encouraging Local Development and Employment Initiatives, in addition to giving examples of jobs in the environmental sector, identifies obstacles facing these initiatives, and suggests how to support them.

3.1.5. The COR believes that workers' representatives - i.e. trade unions and their federations - together with the representatives of employers' and business organizations should be made aware of the employment potential of the environmental sector, thus strengthening joint action.

3.1.6. It must be stressed that there are types of job in the environment sector which do not produce direct profit, e.g. jobs in environmental monitoring services. Hence it is clear that the local authorities cannot alone bear the cost of creating new jobs in the environment sector.

3.2. Cohesion policy as an opportunity to implement sustainable development

3.2.1. Improving the situation of administrative services and management in the poorer regions so that they can effectively deal with environmental problems is a highly important issue. The upgrading of administrative services is particularly important: the effect would be to enhance the monitoring of both private and public sector investment.

3.2.2. It is a fact that the Structural Funds budget has increased, resulting in a rise in allocations for investment in the environment sector. However, the proportion of the Structural Funds allocated to direct environmental investment shows a negligible increase. Similarly, none of the five aims set out in the Green Paper on Community initiatives refers directly to the environment, although the environmental dimension relates horizontally to the initiatives.

3.2.3. It is important for actions and measures with an indirect effect on the environment to be covered by the relevant analyses to assess the impact of interventions by the Funds. The absence of these elements means that neither an assessment of the Community's environmental policy nor monitoring of its application can be carried out.

3.2.4. The assessment of programmes from an environmental standpoint has hitherto been inadequate, as have the indicators of environmental effects and the methods used for measuring environmental cost. Moreover, uniform and precise procedures and conditions are not being followed in assessment at the implementation stage or in retrospective assessment. The designated environmental authorities should make a decisive contribution to the assessment, but so far their role and resources have been underexploited.

3.2.5. In an earlier Opinion, the COR expressed its views on the amendment of Council Directive 85/337/EEC () on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment. The introduction of criteria for assessing the contribution of investment to economic, environmental and cultural sustainability will strengthen cohesion policy and at the same time will provide support for the monitoring committees when projects are being selected.

3.3. Future prospects

3.3.1. The Cohesion Fund has been set a target of 50/50 allocation between transport projects and environment projects.

The Commission states that to achieve this aim a flexible approach must be adopted, taking account of the particular features of each case; it does not, however, make any specific commitment on when or to what extent balance will be achieved in the Fund's allocations. In contradiction to the Communication, the possibility arises of transport works being attributed to the environment budget, provided that they constitute a response to an environmental problem.

3.3.2. The Commission communication states that further options will be considered for environmental pilot projects available under Article 10 of the ERDF Regulation, Article 6 of the ESF Regulation, Article 8 of the EAGGF Regulation and Article 4 of the FIFG Regulation.

However, if we look for example at the budget for Article 10 of the ERDF Regulation, we find that none of the four headings selected for the period 1995-99 relates to sustainability.

The horizontal approach to sustainable development (under which all measures must take into account the need for environmental improvement and rational use of resources) does not detract from the importance of introducing specific headings for sustainability in the budgets for these Articles.

The preferential environmental differentiation of Community assistance under the Structural Funds is an effective tool for promoting investment in the environment sector.

3.3.3. Monitoring and evaluation (ex-ante/ex-post) of programmes is of great importance for sustainable development and cohesion policy.

It would be possible for the assessment of environmental quality to identify negative environmental effects of programmes already adopted, before their application has reached a point where such effects are no longer reversible.

The necessary cooperation with the Member States and the regions, with a view to improving environmental objectives and impact assessment, must take account of the special conditions applying in each Member State and in each region.

A basic weakness found in many regions is the lack of information about the environment. If the environmental 'starting-point` is unknown, it is very difficult for environmental objectives to be set.

The lack of a common methodology for environmental assessment of both regional and sectoral programmes financed by the Structural Funds creates a serious problem both at the selection stage and at the assessment stage.

In order to strengthen the capacity of administrative services to deal with environmental questions, seminar cycles could be planned for the staff of environmental authorities, as well as special programmes to strengthen networks for exchange of experience and methods of environmental assessment.

3.3.4. The COR has already expressed the view that it is imperative for Directive 85/337/EEC to be complemented with a view to its uniform application; for it to be incorporated in administrative procedures free of red tape; for it to be harmonized with the other two Directives which lay down rules for similar projects; for consideration to be given to the need to define special requirements as regards the level of protection and the limitation of the Directive's scope to projects with a substantial impact on the environment.

3.3.5. The existing criteria for financing from Community Funds require programmes to be directly linked with economic growth, and in many cases hinder the achievement of the environmental objectives set in the planning documents.

The lack of quantitative indicators for sustainability is an additional obstacle to the formulation of objective eligibility and selection criteria.

3.3.6. Environmental NGOs can make an important contribution both to the assessment of environmental objectives and to the provision of data on the state of the environment. However, the contribution of these organizations to the procedures of the Community Funds at regional and local level varies considerably from one Member State to another.

4. Conclusions

4.1. The COR agrees that the environmental dimension must be strengthened when the budget is drawn up.

4.2. With regard to the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund, the COR takes the view that priority must be given to the creation and transfer of environmental know-how and to the improvement of administrative structures for programming, selection, monitoring and programme evaluation.

The COR considers that protection of the environment must be a political choice. However, the economic assessment of natural resources and environmental impact will facilitate understanding of the links between economic growth and the quality of the environment.

4.3. The COR considers that elected local and regional authorities should be represented in the selection procedures and in the management of programmes financed by the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund, within the framework of the monitoring committees.

4.4. The COR would urge the Commission to step up its efforts to support national policies which benefit local development and employment initiatives in the environmental sector, principally through the Structural Funds and other policies which can provide further help, in accordance with the Communication from the Commission (COM(95) 273).

The COR stresses that the local authorities must be strengthened so that they can bear the cost of creating new jobs in the environment sector, especially in cases where these jobs are not directly profitable in economic terms.

4.5. Problems caused by harsh climatic conditions, degradation and shortages of natural resources, such as soil erosion, the destruction of forests, floods, drought etc. must be tackled in terms of both prevention and repair, through comprehensive management systems to which the Community should give priority.

4.6. The COR agrees that the Cohesion Fund must be allocated on a 50/50 basis between transport infrastructure projects and environment projects, and calls upon the Commission to include in the Communication: either the timescale for the Commission to reach the aim, or an obligation to ensure a 50/50 allocation of projects from the outset in the planning of the Cohesion Fund. If there are insufficient proposals for environmental projects, the corresponding resources of the Fund should remain unallocated and added to those set aside for environmental projects in the period immediately following.

The COR thinks that coordination of the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund in terms of environmental assessment and monitoring and of eligibility criteria must be implemented immediately so that environment policy can be both uniform and credible.

The COR urges the Commission to strengthen the development of methods for environmental assessment both of regional and of sectoral programmes which are financed by the Structural Funds.

4.7. The COR believes that the improvement of the condition of administrative services should be monitored, especially when the use of Community funds or the application of Community legislation is involved.

4.8. Pilot programmes and exchange of best practice as regards sustainable development will improve the effectiveness of the various local administrative structures in achieving sustainability.

Specific headings must be provided for sustainability in the budgets for Article 10 of the ERDF, Article 6 of the ESF, Article 8 of the EAGGF and Article 4 of the FIFG Regulations.

The COR believes that more emphasis should be given to Community initiatives in support of innovative environmental rehabilitation and anti-pollution measures.

Pilot projects and programmes should be developed to cover Agenda 21 including all the Fifth Action Programme objectives especially the involvement of local and regional government and local environmental agencies working in partnership with business and NGOs.

4.9. The COR believes that, in order to facilitate the preferential environmental differentiation of Community assistance, the impending review of the Structural Funds must include, in Article 13(1) of the Framework Regulation, the criterion:

'- contribution of the activity to promoting sustainable development.`

4.10. The COR supports the efforts to be made by the Commission to pinpoint in the programming documents the projects with indirect positive effects on the environment.

The COR urges the Commission to support, at regional level, the collection and recording of data concerning the monitoring and the state of the environment.

Critical analysis of the existing programme documents must also aim to identify corrective measures to be applied during the implementation of programmes, with a view to improving environmental quality.

4.11. The Commission should seek, in cooperation with the Member States, to upgrade the designated environmental authorities and strengthen their role.

Seminar cycles for the management staff of these authorities could form part of the planning obligations of each Member State and be run by experts recognized by the Commission.

The COR also calls upon the Commission to provide for special programmes to strengthen networks for exchange of experience and methods of environmental assessment between the Member States' environmental authorities in the near future.

4.12. In the COR's view, the Commission must work together with the Member States and the regions to formulate eligibility and selection criteria and to define indicators to assess environmental effects and quantify sustainability.

The existing criteria for financing by the Funds must be revised so as to ensure that the structural policy is in a position to support the whole range of measures needed to promote sustainable development. Going beyond strict cost-benefit criteria, it is necessary to include criteria which could cover funding of collection of environmental information, rehabilitation measures, nature protection plans, etc.

Until the Regulations of the Funds are next revised, the COR believes there must be specific obligations regarding the steps which the Commission intends to take to bring local and regional authorities to apply eligibility criteria which will take account of the environmental quality of the projects and their contribution to promoting sustainable development.

Technical assistance to programmes will have to include inter-State and inter-regional transfer of existing know-how on environmental evaluation methods and on development of indicators for environmental impact assessment.

4.13. The COR expresses its satisfaction at the encouragement given to the participation of non-governmental organizations concerned with the environment in the context of regular dialogue and exchange of information and experience.

The procedure whereby the authorities responsible publicize the programming documents and their implementation must be defined forthwith, and the authorities responsible must commit themselves specifically to following it.

The publicity must aim for the fullest possible information for the public on the social, economic and environmental effects of the programmes, so as to ensure social dialogue and social acceptance.

4.14. Enhanced consideration of environmental projects is an important precondition for the success of cohesion policy and the promotion of sustainable development, within the framework of existing resources.

4.15. Finally, the COR urges the Commission to intensify cooperation with local and regional authorities to improve the environmental evaluation of all regional programmes in a systematic way, developing common methods, with a view to better coordination of environmental action in the Community as a whole.

Brussels, 19 September 1996.

The Chairman of the Committee of the Regions

Pasqual MARAGALL i MIRA

() OJ No C 210, 14. 8. 1995, p. 78.

() OJ No C 100, 2. 4. 1996, p. 72.

() OJ No L 175, 5. 7. 1985, p. 40.