OPINION OF THE COMMISSION pursuant to Article 251(2)(c) of the EC Treaty on the European Parliament's amendments to the Council's common position regarding the Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL ON A REVISED COMMUNITY ECO-LABEL AWARD SCHEME AMENDING THE PROPOSAL OF THE COMMISSION pursuant to Article 250 (2) of the EC Treaty

OPINION OF THE COMMISSION pursuant to Article 251(2)(c) of the EC Treaty on the European Parliament's amendments to the Council's common position regarding the Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL ON A REVISED COMMUNITY ECO-LABEL AWARD SCHEME

1. Background

On 11 December 1996 the Commission adopted a Proposal to revise Council Regulation (EEC) No 880/92 on a Community eco-label Award Scheme, based on Article 130s(1) of the Treaty (now Article 175(1) ). It was published in the Official Journal on 12 April 1997.

The Commission Proposal was transmitted to the Council on 19 March 1997 and to the European Parliament on 8 April 1997.

On 10 July 1997 the Section for Protection of the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Affairs of the Economic and Social Committee adopted its Opinion.

The Committee of the Regions received the Proposal on 13 July 1997 but decided not to give an opinion.

The European Parliament adopted an Opinion on First Reading on 13 May 1998.

The Commission accepted seven of the 42 amendments of the European Parliament, without prejudice to additional improvement at a further stage. They were incorporated in the Amended Commission Proposal adopted on 18 January 1999.

The Council Common Position was adopted unanimously on 11 November 1999.

The Commission supported the outcome of the Common Position in its Communication to the European Parliament, adopted on 24 November 1999.

At the sitting of 2 December 1999 the President of Parliament announced that the Common Position had been received. On 15 March 2000, at its second reading, the European Parliament adopted 6 amendments to the Council Common Position.

This opinion sets out the Commission's position on the European Parliament's amendments in accordance with Article 251 (2)(c) of the EC Treaty.

2. Aim of Commission proposal

The main objective of the Proposal on a revised Community eco-label award scheme was to improve its efficiency, transparency and methodological approach, and make it more attractive to both manufacturers, distributors and consumers. In particular, it aimed to give much greater responsibility to the eco-label Competent Bodies and the different interest groups in establishing the ecological criteria.

3. Commission's Opinion on the amendments proposed by the Parliament

3.1. Summary of the Commission's position

The Commission can accept all six of the amendments in full.

3.2. Parliament's amendments on second reading

Amendments accepted

Amendment 1 (active involvement of environmental and consumer NGOs) (Recital 5)

This amendment stresses the importance of the active involvement of environmental and consumer NGOs in developing eco-label criteria. The Commission agrees that their support and involvement is essential for the balance and credibility of the eco-label.

Amendment 2 (plans for coordination and cooperation with national eco-labels) (Article 5)

This amendment to the working plan stresses joint promotional actions and would require a report on the implementation of the cooperation and coordination with national eco-labels. The Commission is convinced that joint promotional activities in particular will play a key role in enhancing the visibility of the Community eco-label. It is equally essential to set in place a more systematic exchange of information between the schemes.

Amendment 3 (joint display of Community and national logos) (Article 11)

This amendment would require products awarded both the Community and a national label to display both logos side by side. The Commission is convinced that joint display of the logos will mutually reinforce their visibility, and help and encourage the consumer to seek eco-labelled products.

Amendment 4 (active involvement of all interested parties) (Article 14)

This amendment would require the eco-label Competent Bodies to involve actively all interested parties. The Commission agrees that their support and involvement of all parties is essential for the balance and credibility of the eco-label.

Amendments 5 and 6 (fees) (Annexe V)

These amendments were considered as identical. They would require the setting of a maximum application and annual fee. They would require a reduction of at least 25% to both fees for SMEs and applicants from developing countries. They would allow for reductions to the annual fee for applicants certified under EMAS or ISO 14001, and other appropriate reductions. They stress the importance for SMEs to minimise the testing and verification costs. The Commission is favourable to its overall objective of making the fee structure more flexible and acceptable to potential applicants, especially as the eco-label is a voluntary scheme. The level of fees should not prevent those that are doing the most for the environment to apply for the eco-label.

3.3. Amended proposal

The Commission is not amending its proposal, but invites the Council to take full account of this Opinion when considering the amendments proposed by the Parliament.