Resolution on the Commission communication 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)0509 C4-0141/96)
Date: 1997-02-18
Institutions: Committee on Regional Development, European Parliament
Subjects: Cohesion Fund, economic and social cohesion, environmental policy, regional development, sustainable development













EUR-Lex - 51996IP0360 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



51996IP0360

Resolution on the Commission communication 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)0509 C4-0141/96)  


Official Journal C 085 , 17/03/1997 P. 0042 





A4-0360/96Resolution on the Commission communication 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)0509 - C4-0141/96)The European Parliament,- having regard to the Commission communication (COM(95)0509 - C4-0141/96),- having regard to Articles 2, 3(j) and (k), 130a-130e, and 130r-130t of the EC Treaty,- having regard to Regulation (EEC) No 2081/93 of 20 July 1993 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 on the tasks of the Structural Funds and their effectiveness and on coordination of their activities between themselves and with the operations of the European Investment Bank and the other existing financial instruments ((OJ L 193, 31.7.1993, p. 5.)),- having regard to Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment ((OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.)),- having regard to its Decision of 13 November 1996 on the common position established by the Council with a view to the adoption of a Council Directive amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment ((Minutes of that Sitting, Part II, Item 4.)),- having regard to of its resolution of 5 April 1995 on the guidelines for the 1996 budgetary procedure, Section III - Commission ((OJ C 109, 1.5.1995, p. 46.)), and in particular paragraph 8 thereof,- having regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the Commission communication,- having regard to the report by the Committee on Regional Policy and the opinions of the Committee on Budgets and the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection (A4-0360/96),A. whereas the implementation of Community structural actions must help to safeguard sustainable development and avoid damaging the environment,B. whereas the relevant Community legislation is incomplete at many points, particularly with regard to the carrying out of the environmental impact assessment, with the result that the environment is not adequately protected,C. whereas the functioning of the Cohesion Fund, half of which should support actions in the field of the environment, is not entirely satisfactory from an environmental point of view and presents a number of problems that are capable of being solved,D. whereas the functioning of the monitoring committees on the implementation of structural fund programmes must be improved with regard to the importance attached to protecting and promoting the environment,E. whereas Community structural actions must not prove detrimental to the environment or in any event should be implemented at the least possible cost to the environment,F. whereas purely environmental Community initiatives and innovative actions do not exist,G. whereas the objectives of development and environmental protection can to a large extent be harmonized with one another and whereas the prime objective must be the achievement of sustainable development,H. whereas regions with good environmental conditions are undoubtedly more attractive for making investments, and hence achieving development, than those which display environmental degradation,I. whereas the transfer of resources and technology from the more developed to the less developed regions of the Union through the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund can also have a positive knock-on effect on the environment of the latter regions, provided of course that the transferred resources and technology are properly utilized,J. bearing in mind the letter of intention of 8 December 1995 which the Commission sent to Parliament during the procedure for approving the 1996 budget, in which it pledged, firstly, that proposals for projects costing more than ECU 50 million not already implemented would be provided with a provision on respect for the environment, and secondly, that, within the framework of the available resources and with the help of the appropriate organization and of special staff training, the services concerned will be given the possibility of meeting the above-mentioned conditions by checking, monitoring and assessing the environmental impact of the structural measures,K. whereas direct actions and projects in the field of the environment make an important contribution to the creation of new jobs and/or the maintenance of existing ones and consequently to development,L. whereas undertakings active in the field of the environment (eco- businesses) - many of which are, of course, small or medium-sized enterprises - as well as other similar activities, such as eco-tourism, make an important contribution to achieving the goal of sustainability as they create jobs and at the same time help to protect the environment,1. Considers, as a general principle, that it is essential to boost considerably the importance attached to the environmental dimension at every level of the planning and implementation of the Union's cohesion policy and that all activities under the structural funds and the Cohesion Fund must take into consideration the goal of sustainable development; considers that release of funds should be made conditional upon implementation and proof of application of EC environmental law relevant to the programmes and projects;2. Insists that a larger proportion of the funding should go to nature conservation in order to protect the biotopes and habitats of endangered species and flora and fauna in general, including the construction of bridges for wildlife; as far as the Cohesion Fund is concerned calls on the Commission to ensure the equilibrium between transport infrastructure projects and environment projects;3. Calls on the Member States and the Commission to take the necessary steps to ensure coherent application of the principle of compensation, namely that the adverse effects of the construction of infrastructures or other activities in the landscape, the natural environment, woodland or recreational areas are counteracted or otherwise compensated for;4. Considers that efforts should be made to further the integration of cohesion policy with agricultural policy to achieve environmental objectives;5. Considers that the specific financing criteria of each Fund (Cohesion Fund included) should be reviewed to ensure that the Funds are able in practice to support the full range of activities needed to achieve environmentally sustainable development;6. Regrets that, because of the criterion that projects must involve a minimum of ECU 10 m to be eligible for financing from the Cohesion Fund, many environmental projects cannot be financed from the fund because of their small scale; calls on the Commission, therefore, to create the possibility for different environmental projects to be linked so that together they satisfy the minimum size criterion;7. Considers that very careful consideration should be given to the idea of the preferential environmental differentiation of the Community aid coefficient with the aim of promoting environmentally sustainable investments and projects which are more environmentally-friendly;8. Considers it extremely important to increase appropriations and improve programmes in the field of direct environmental actions, and believes that the necessary greater emphasis on the environmental dimension could come from, among other things, the creation of a purely environmental Community initiative as well as from support for purely environmental actions within the framework of innovative actions (Article 10 of the ERDF Regulation); stresses that such direct and purely environmental actions should also include measures for nature conservation, preservation of biodiversity, and sustainable management of the natural heritage;9. Believes that a particularly positive step would be the formulation of a rule according to which the actions selected from the actions possible or proposed must always be those which are most friendly - or in any event least harmful - to the environment;10. Considers that, should the scale or the nature of a project's environmental impact of give rise to divergent views, greater emphasis should be placed on the application of the precautionary principle (Article 130r(2) of the EC Treaty);11. Considers that, with regard to the functioning of the Cohesion Fund, strenuous efforts should be made in future to ensure strict observance of the requirement that actions supported in the fields of transport and the environment should each receive a 50% share, and that greater emphasis should be placed on promoting purely environmental actions and the most environmentally-friendly modes of transport;12. Considers that the particularly important institution of the environmental impact assessment (EIA) needs to be reformed and better implemented in practice in order to make it more effective in protecting the environment; considers, in particular, that the EIA must be carried out without fail before the project is approved, be worked out by experts other than those who designed and/or constructed the project, and above all that the study's conclusions must be vested with legal force;13. Urges the Commission to swiftly complete its proposal on amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment;14. Urges the Commission to initiate the procedure for carrying out a research study on finding a widely accepted method of precisely determining and measuring the possible environmental impacts of projects and actions supported by the Union;15. Believes in general that there is a need for an improvement in the functioning of the monitoring committees; considers, in particular, that that improvement could come, on the one hand, from enhancing the Commission's role without undermining the principle of subsidiarity, something which can take place through dialogue and closer cooperation between the Commission and the Member States and with local and regional authorities, and, on the other hand, from upgrading the participation in those committees of public environmental authorities and organizations as well as non-governmental environmental organizations;16. Stresses that elected local and regional authorities should be involved at the planning, monitoring and evaluation stages of programmes financed by the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund;17. Strongly supports the Commission's intention to involve environmental NGOs in regular dialogue and exchange of information and experience; the Commission should encourage national and regional authorities to allow NGOs access to information (documents, maps, photographs etc.) as well as to Monitoring Committees and other decision-making bodies;18. Asks the Commission to pay particular attention to increasing evaluation and control, including the necessary inspection visits, and to according broader powers as regards project selection and managing financial resources to the monitoring committees;19. Considers that a particularly important measure would be the setting up at Community or national level of a body of environmental monitors which could be active both during the implementation and above all in the subsequent assessment of projects in order to verify compliance with the terms of the contract, establish any breaches and impose the appropriate penalties, such as for example fines, the adoption of corrective measures, etc.; such controls would be carried out randomly or following an express complaint which is at first sight not manifestly unfounded;20. Calls on the Commission to set up a 'Task Force for Regional Development and Environmentally Sustainable Development¨ with representatives of the Directorates-General XVI, XI and VI so as to integrate environmental concerns and to ensure better coordination between the Directorates- General;21. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to promote training initiatives on policy guidelines and best practices for regional sustainable development for national and regional officers as well as economic and social actors - responsible for planning, implementing and monitoring EU regional policy measures;22. Urges the Commission to make greater use of its powers to force the Member States to comply with environmental legislation, including suspension or cancelling of funding or fines (in accordance with Article 171 EC) and if necessary to make proposals for the extension of its powers;23. Believes that the Union should support 'eco-businesses', the majority of which are small and medium-sized enterprises, while at the same time also assisting other environmentally-friendly activities, such as eco-tourism;24. Considers that the environmental policies of the European Union should not be turned into an instrument of anti-cohesive industrial policies nor into an alibi for commercial interests in the competition to win markets, but rather into a growing and progressive framework which will enable the European industrial and commercial fabric to be adjusted;25. Calls on the Commission to undertake to:(a) communicate promptly the arrangements made with regard to the organization of the services and procedures for the implementation of the provisions contained in the letter of intent from Commissioners Wulf-Mathies and Liikanen;(b) provide the budgetary authority with the information necessary for a cost-benefit analysis of actions taken as part of the greening operation of the structural funds (including under Objectives 3, 4 and 5a) and the Cohesion Fund;(c) ensure that that analysis can be made on the basis of a list of major projects accompanied by a quantitative and qualitative impact statement with two parameters: cohesion and durability. The sheet will be forwarded to Parliament before Parliament's first reading of the budget;26. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Commission and the Council.