WRITTEN QUESTION E-1718/01

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(14 June 2001)

Subject: Differences in interpretation in the various Member States with regard to the participation or exclusion of independent auditors and environmental auditors in the implementation of the EMAS scheme.

1. Does the Commission remember that in relation to the regulation on the voluntary participation of organisations in the Community environmental management and audit scheme (EMAS) the European Parliament adopted an amendment in the first two readings to the effect that large verification bodies would lose their monopoly position as EMAS verifiers so that independent auditors and environmental auditors would also be able to carry out this task, but that this provision was not included in the final text adopted at third reading on 14 February 2001 as a result of the conciliation procedure?

2. Can the Commission confirm that current practice differs greatly from Member State to Member State, so that in Germany independent auditors are permitted to carry out these tasks whereas large bodies in the Netherlands and Denmark are attempting to prevent this?

3. Is the Commission aware that obstacles are being created in the Netherlands by the Accreditation Council (Raad voor de Accreditatie) and, following suit, by the Foundation for the Coordination of Certification of Environmental Management Systems (Stichting Coördinatie Certificatie Milieuzorgsystemen - SCCM) which are in a position to exclude the approximately 80 environmental auditors from the impregnable bulwark constituted by the certifying bodies?

4. Is the Commission aware of the Dutch draft bill No 27683 which aims to amend Article 12 of the Environmental Management Act in connection with the revision of the EMAS regulation but which does not take into account the freedom to provide services presumed in the EMAS regulation? Does the Commission consider this draft bill to be compatible with the spirit of the regulation?

5. What is the Commission's interpretation of the manner in which independent auditors and environmental auditors may be allowed to carry out or be excluded from such activities in future? Which interpretation should in future be considered correct, the German or the Dutch/Danish interpretation? Or does the Commission consider it acceptable that in practice different arrangements continue to apply in the various Member States with the consequences that this entails as regards the legal situation of this profession?

6. Does the Commission intend to allow the differences in interpretation in the various Member States to continue in the long term? If not, how and when does it intend to solve this problem?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(26 July 2001)

1. and 2. It never was the case that the EMAS Regulation, either in its original version(1) or in its amended version(2), restricted access to the profession of EMAS environmental verifier to organisations alone. On the contrary, the EMAS Regulation states that national accreditation bodies may accredit individuals, organisations or both, as environmental verifiers(3).

This option is open to the Member States under the subsidiarity principle, allowing them in particular to take into account the environmental certification structure which existed previously. Whichever option the Member State chooses in adopting a national accreditation system, the accredited environmental verifiers must be independent of the activities they are verifying.

Under Regulation (EC) No 761/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 March 2001(4), Member States have 12 months from the date of entry into force of the Regulation to have fully operational accreditation systems in place. It is therefore difficult to judge in advance whether they will choose organisations or individuals as EMAS verifiers.

Accordingly, the Commission cannot for the moment uphold the view that certain verification bodies are preventing individuals from participating in the EMAS accreditation scheme.

3. The concept of environmental verifier relates only to the EMAS Regulation, so that the reference made in the question to 80 verifiers who may be excluded from verification is not very clear. Either these are 80 environmental verifiers accredited in accordance with the EMAS Regulation or they are individuals with other responsibilities for whom the conditions for pursuing their profession are not laid down in the EMAS Regulation. It should be mentioned here that the Community register of accredited environmental verifiers contains only six verifiers for the Netherlands.

4. The Commission has not yet officially received the Dutch bill referred to, and cannot therefore comment on its compatibility with Regulation (EC) No 761/2001.

5. and 6. As already stated in 1 and 2 above, Regulation (EC) No 761/2001 leaves it to the Member States to choose what type of environmental verifiers they are going to accredit (individuals, organisations or both), so exercising this option cannot be understood as a difference in interpretation of the Regulation. At any rate, in accordance with the principle of freedom to provide services environmental verifiers accredited in one Member State, whether organisations or individuals, may carry out their duties in any other Member State, as, incidentally, Article 4(5) of Regulation (EC) No 761/2001 reiterates.

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1836/93 of 29 June 1993 allowing voluntary participation by companies in the industrial sector in a Community eco-management and audit scheme (OJ L 168, 10.7.1993).

(2) OJ L 114, 24.4.2001.

(3) Cf Annex III A to Regulation (EEC) No 1836/93 and Annex V 5.1 to Regulation (EEC) No 761/2001.

(4) OJ L 114, 24.4.2001.