Resolution on the communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee, the Committee of the Regions and the candidate countries in Central and Eastern Europe on accession strategies for environment: Meeting the challenge of enlargement with the candidate countries in Central and Eastern Europe (COM(98)0294 C4-0380/98)
Date: 1999-04-15
Institutions: Committee on the Environment, Climate and Food Safety, European Parliament
Subjects: Central and Eastern Europe, approximation of laws, enlargement of the Union, environmental protection













EUR-Lex - 51999IP0123 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



51999IP0123

Resolution on the communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee, the Committee of the Regions and the candidate countries in Central and Eastern Europe on accession strategies for environment: Meeting the challenge of enlargement with the candidate countries in Central and Eastern Europe (COM(98)0294 C4-0380/98)  


Official Journal C 219 , 30/07/1999 P. 0453 





A4-0123/99Resolution on the communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee, the Committee of the Regions and the candidate countries in Central and Eastern Europe on accession strategies for environment: Meeting the challenge of enlargement with the candidate countries in Central and Eastern Europe (COM(98)0294 - C4-0380/98)The European Parliament,- having regard to the Commission communication, COM(98)0294 - C4-0380/98,- having regard to the Treaty of Amsterdam, notably Articles 2, 3 and 3c EC (future Articles 2, 3 and 6 EC),- having regard to the Commission communication on Agenda 2000: for a stronger and wider Union (COM(97)2000 - C4-0371/97) and Parliament's resolution of 4 December 1997 ((OJ C 388, 22.12.1997, p. 17.)),- having regard to the Commission communication to the European Council 'Partnership for Integration - A strategy for integrating environment into EU policies¨ (COM(98)0333 - C4-0410/98) and Parliament's resolution of 5 November 1998 ((OJ C 359, 23.11.1998, p. 91.)),- having regard to the conclusions from the Vienna European Council of 11 and 12 December 1998,- having regard to the European Parliament and Council Decision No 2179/98/EC on the Review of the European Community programme of policy and action in relation to the environment and sustainable development 'Towards Sustainability¨ ((OJ L 275, 10.10.1998, p. 1.)),- having regard to the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and the Council on the Fifth Framework Programme for Research, Technological Development and Demonstration Activities (1998-2000) ((OJ C 173, 7.6.1997, p. 10.)),- having regard to the report of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection (A4-0123/99),A. whereas the future enlargement with Central and Eastern European countries constitutes the biggest challenge in recent times to both the applicant countries and to the EU; whereas at the same time, it will also represent a major opportunity for improving the overall state of Europe's environment,B. whereas the environment should be one of the main priorities in the enlargement negotiations,C. whereas the applicant countries' compliance with the 'acquis communautaire¨ must be a minimum requirement for membership of the EU; whereas no transition period exceeding 5 years should be granted and precise timetables and legislative programmes for implementation of EU-law should be put in place,D. whereas EU funding should be sufficiently targeted to achieve a maximum return in terms of environmental improvements and that all funding in other areas should respect environmental requirements and be subject to a broad environmental assessment,1. Considers it essential that the environment should be one of the main priorities in the enlargement negotiations; is of the opinion that this should also be ensured in the practical negotiations by stressing that membership will be possible only once all EU environmental legislation has been accepted and implemented; also considers that it is essential that the applicant countries should accept the obligations laid down in international environmental agreements before accession;2. Calls on the Commission, in the interest of applying realistic accession criteria, to draw up a list of the most important areas of EU environmental legislation with which candidate countries are required to comply at the time of accession; believes this list should in principle be the same for all candidate countries. It should be drawn up on the basis of objective environmental criteria with the Council and the European Parliament; further considers that the implementation of other legislation, contracts should be drawn up during negotiations with clearly defined timetables and financial structures;3. Considers that the candidate countries' action plans should be the subject of regular reporting to the European Parliament;4. Considers that all new investments in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, from both national and foreign sources, should comply with current EU law, with immediate effect;5. Takes the view that special attention must be devoted to the development of regional and local environmental authorities in all the applicant countries; feels that accommodating EU environmental provisions to the applicant countries' legislation will require substantial resources and much administrative development; believes that funding is available for administrative development under the EU's Phare programme and that such funding should particularly be used to develop environmental administration and to undertake infrastructural investment which is required to facilitate compliance with environmental rules and international environmental agreements; is of the opinion that the applicant countries' environmental authorities should be given coordinating responsibilities here and that opportunities have to be created for a proper participation of citizens' organisations in decision making at all levels; also considers it important to support the candidate countries in their efforts to create property law institutions, which are a prerequisite for a healthy environment in the long term;6. Considers that the Phare programme must become an effective instrument for the allocation of resources to the candidate countries, and that an effective and properly functioning bureaucracy is needed for this purpose;7. Welcomes the decision to change Phare from a demand-driven programme to one promoting preparation for accession and calls on the Commission to implement this as soon as possible;8. Is aware of the difficulties experienced in particular by SMEs and local and regional authorities in obtaining loans for environmental investments and therefore calls on the EBRD and the EIB to investigate the possibility of setting up guarantee funds which will make it easier for banks in Central and Eastern Europe to grant loans for environmental investments;9. Finds it necessary that Community funding from various sources should be especially concentrated on projects to reduce cross-border emissions; further consider that, above all, actions reducing emissions into the air have to be emphasised, something that is of wider importance, for example to protect the ozone layer, prevent climate change and conserve forests and nature in general in the applicant countries; also feels that applicant countries should also be encouraged to implement the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive (IPPC) and the Directive on environmental impact assessments (EIA), while rivers and other cross-border water systems have to be protected by special measures; is of the opinion that joint regional projects can promote the implementation, inter alia, of the principal framework directives on water and air quality;10. Regards it as essential for the environmental issues related to the Baltic Sea area to be given a still higher priority as the enlargement of the EU progresses; considers that regional cooperation in the Baltic sea area calls for more effective coordination of the EU's existing aid resources; feels that the Interreg, Phare and Tacis programmes must continue to be coordinated in inter-regional and cross-border cooperation, and the environmental dimension of all these programmes must be enhanced; is of the opinion that the 'Sustainable Cities' network project must also be taken further, by including all the areas in the Baltic Sea region and that aid should be directed to this end both in the form of national support and by support for programmes covering the whole region;11. Recalls that serious problems requiring quick decisions particularly exist in the field of nuclear safety and radiation protection and considers it vital that the standard of nuclear safety in the applicant countries be improved so as to comply with international standards; holds the view that nuclear reactors which are in poor condition must be closed down and that international financial institutions as EIB, EBRD, the World Bank and the Nordic Investment Bank have to participate in the realization of alternative energy projects; feels that improving existing nuclear power stations should be regarded as part of a wider energy strategy in which sustainable and cost-effective renewable energy sources are developed which will also help to solve worldwide environmental problems; is convinced that to improve nuclear safety, only the newest and best technology must be used and that, at any rate, the use of outdated technology for the renovation of electric power stations in candidate countries should be abandoned;12. Notes that the people of the Central and Eastern European candidate countries must be given comprehensive and factually-based information on the state of nuclear safety in their countries;13. Notes that, alongside energy investments, transport investments are of decisive importance for a sustainable development policy; considers that transport networks must be based on an existing formula and on a national transport strategy which is both environmentally sound and cost-effective; feels that the ISPAs and other EU financial support measures should seek to preserve and support public transport which places as little strain as possible on the environment, such as the railways; holds the view that public transport networks in cities should also be regarded as part of pan-European networks; believes that environmentally sound transport projects are of particular significance for air quality in large cities;14. Is convinced that the environment and production can simultaneously confer benefits if environmental aspects are fully taken into account from the start in policies and investment decisions in various fields; believes that all new investments should accord fully with Community rules; considers that compliance with this principle should be a precondition for Community funding and that international financial institutions should likewise take this as a guideline; is of the view that this requirement should be incorporated in the accession treaties as a legally binding obligation which is also applicable during the post-accession period;15. Stresses that the implementation of existing Community legislation must not be the ultimate objective of environmental policy in the applicant countries; points out that the Amsterdam Treaty lays down that environmental protection requirements must be integrated into the definition and implementation of all Community policies and activities; considers that the integration of environmental aspects into other sectors of policy should be an ongoing task and that the attainment of the objectives should be reviewed regularly at European Council level; feels that as the accession negotiations progress, the applicant countries should also participate in the review process;16. Is gratified that the standard of nature conservation in the applicant countries is as good as, for example, in many of the present EU Member States; draws attention to the fact that privatisation processes are under way in many of the applicant countries which are liable to endanger conservation areas and the preservation of natural diversity and considers it important that the applicant countries should establish clear rules on areas to be conserved and compensatory payments; is of the view that countries' nature conservation legislation should be modernised, and the directives on nature and birds transposed into national legislation;17. Fears that the high standard of nature conservation in the applicant countries is liable to suffer as a result of the intensification of agriculture and forestry and road-building; considers it necessary, therefore, for a special extra allocation to be paid into the LIFE fund to meet the needs of the applicant countries; stresses that conservation areas alone are insufficient to maintain the natural diversity of Europe, however, while the preservation of biodiversity must be taken into account in all economic activity;18. Sees great opportunities to promote the EU's common agricultural policy in accordance with the principles of sustainable development if, in the course of the development of the applicant countries, the intensive farming and chemicalisation of agriculture stage is skipped, thus proceeding direct to a more natural form of production; further considers that Community funding should encourage farmers in the applicant countries to move in this direction, something that would also guide the existing Member States in the right direction;19. Considers that the impetus for a more environmentally sound agriculture must come in consultation with the local population in accordance with their needs and wishes, since it is also important for farmers' organisations to be encouraged to participate in the development and integration of environmental objectives and their integration into agriculture;20. Stresses that in order to be effective the ISPAs must be sufficiently uniform; believes that the various instruments should reinforce the principle of additionality, and a single complex of projects should as a rule be funded from a single financial instrument; is of the view that support must be concentrated to a greater extent than has hitherto been planned on the time leading up to membership, in order to ensure that EU legislation is successfully incorporated into the applicant countries' legislation; considers that pre-accession aid and aid after accession should be grouped under the same heading in the EU budget , so that the adequate flexibility required by the enlargement process can be guaranteed;21. Considers that, in order to improve the level of participation by ordinary people, priority support must be given to NGOs working in the environmental, public health and consumer protection sectors;22. Considers that everyone's environmental awareness must be promoted in order to strengthen local environmental commitment in accordance with Agenda 21;23. Considers that the exchange of know-how between local organisations in the Member States and local organisations in the candidate countries should be encouraged;24. Considers it essential for the people of the candidate countries to be informed adequately and comprehensively about environmental issues; feels that existing and future NGOs should have active information tasks and should be given adequate financial and organisational support to this end by the authorities;25. Is absolutely convinced that the enlargement process represents a major opportunity to improve the state of Europe's environment; holds the view that the aim should be sustainable development, to be attained by developing and implementing environmental legislation and integrating environmental issues into all other policies; considers that this requirement should apply equally to existing and future EU Member States;26. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the Economic and Social Committee, the Committee of the Regions, Member States' national parliaments and the governments and parliaments of the applicant countries.