Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Proposal for a Council recommendation providing for minimum criteria for environmental inspections in the Member States'
Date: 1999-04-28
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EC recommendation, environmental monitoring, environmental standard, proposal (EU)

C 169/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

16.6.1999

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Council recommendation
providing for minimum criteria for environmental inspections in the Member States’

(1999/C 169/05)

On 9 February 1999 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article
130s of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the above-mentioned proposal.

The Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment, which was responsible for
preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 8 April 1999. The rapporteur
was Mrs Sa´nchez Miguel and the co-rapporteurs Mr Pezzini and Mrs Santiago.

At its 363rd plenary session (meeting of 28 April 1999) the Economic and Social Committee adopted
the following opinion by 84 votes to three with two abstentions.

1.

Introduction

1.1.
The implementation and enforcement of Community
environmental standards are delegated to the Member States
in line with the principle of subsidiarity. However, in view of
the increasing damage to the environment, thought must be
given to the need for the competent Community authorities to
push ahead not only with the harmonization of divergent
national
legislative models, but also with the creation of
Community information and monitoring systems to ensure
that the Member States comply with Community environmen-
tal standards.

It should be noted that the Commission communi-
1.2.
law (1)
cation on implementing Community environmental
announced measures to harmonize existing Member State
inspection systems by laying down minimum criteria for
environmental inspections, to be drawn up by IMPEL (2). In its
opinion (3) on this communication the Committee argued that
the European Environment Agency should also undertake this
task as it has detailed information on the situation in the
Member States.

1.3.
The need for harmonization is apparent from the
measures envisaged in the Commission proposal. Its aim is to
establish some minimum criteria for environmental inspec-
tions carried out in the Member States in the various sectors
into which responsibility is divided. These criteria — which
have been proposed by IMPEL — concern the frequency of
inspections, the information required, publication of findings,
etc. The proposal is also intended to establish some minimum
rules for publicising the results, aimed at the general public
and more specifically at environmental organisations.

It should be pointed out, however, that in this first
1.4.
stage the scope of the proposal is confined to air, water and
soil pollution from point sources covered by Community
legislation (‘controlled installations’); diffuse sources are not
included.

1.5.
The inspection of these installations will entail check-
ing compliance with Community environmental legislation
and the provisions enacted by national authorities
in
implementation thereof. ‘Environmental inspection’ will also
include monitoring the impact of controlled installations on
the environment with a view to making recommendations as to
measures which may be taken in the event of non-compliance.

1.6.
There are two types of inspection: routine, i.e. part of
a planned programme, and non-routine, i.e. carried out in
response to a complaint or accident.

The legal basis for the proposal is Articles 130r and
1.7.
130s of the Treaty which refer to the implementation of
Community environmental policy, although Articles 155, 169
and 171, which empower the Commission to supervise the
transposition of Community into national law, would also
apply.

1.8.
It must be stressed that inspection is the sole responsi-
bility of the Member States. For this reason the Commission
has opted for a recommendation which lays down minimum
standards for existing (or new) inspections in the Member
States so as not to impinge on their sovereignty in this matter.

2. Comments on the proposed measures

(1) COM(96) 500 final, 22.10.96.
(2) Implementation and Enforcement of Environmental Law.
(3) OJ C 206, 7.7.1997.

2.1. With regard to informing the public (Art. IV.1 and
especially VI.2), which is covered by Directive 90/313/EEC on
the freedom of access to information on the environment, the
Committee considers that more stress should be placed on

16.6.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 169/13

publicising the inspection activities and that above all the
legitimate right to request such information should be clearly
defined, seeing that in practice it is often refused.

would stress the importance of extending this co-operation to
the applicant countries so as to help them make the changes
necessary to bring all their environmental legislation into line
with the Community acquis.

2.2. With regard to the inspection criteria proposed by the
Commission (Art. 5), the Committee proposes adding that the
authorities responsible for the inspections should apply to
those enterprises which voluntarily join the eco-management
and audit scheme (1) (EMAS) the same inspection methods as
are already used in the EMAS. This would encourage a greater
number of enterprises to join the scheme which has scarcely
been used so far in some Member States.

2.3.
The Committee approves recommendation VIII on the
reporting of environmental inspection activities in general.
This is a positive step in that it enables a check to be made on
the level of compliance with the regulations. It also approves
the actions proposed in the event of non-compliance.

2.4.
Non-routine site visits (Art. V.3) may be regarded as
playing a fundamental preventive role, since the cooperation
of environmental organizations and the public will make for
better monitoring of compliance with the regulations. Account
should also be taken of the role that workers’ organizations
could play here, in that it is the workers who suffer directly
from the effects of non-compliance with environmental stan-
dards and who are more knowledgeable than other members
of public. Recommendation V.3 should therefore contain a
new paragraph recognizing the right of workers’ organizations
in inspected enterprises and installations to file a complaint.

2.5.
Inspection reports could be better publicised (Art. VI.2)
if they were included in a European register as urged by the
ESC in its opinion on the implementation of environmental
legislation (2). The European Environment Agency could under-
take this task.

III.2), since the exchange of

2.6.
The Committee welcomes the inclusion of a rec-
ommendation on co-operation between the Member States
(Art.
including
carrying out joint inspections, will have a greater impact on
the environment, bearing in mind that many natural resources,
water, air, etc. know no frontiers. In this connection the ESC

information,

(1) Council Regulation EEC No. 1836/93, OJ L 168, 10.7.1993.
(2) OJ C 206, 7.7.1997.

By the same token, the Committee considers that
2.7.
minimum criteria should be laid down for harmonising the
training of inspectors.

3. Conclusions

The ESC considers that

this recommendation will
3.1.
help to ensure that environmental legislation is implemented
properly; the Commission must, however, push ahead with
the planned subsequent stages, especially the inspection of
diffuse sources of pollution.

3.2.
In order to reduce the current differences in inspection
duties between the Member States, it is also important to lay
down some common criteria for environmental inspectors, in
particular their qualifications and training, as is being done
through IMPEL.

3.3. With regard to point VII on investigations of serious
accidents and incidents, the Commission should be able, with
due respect for the principle of subsidiarity, to take action to
remedy any shortcomings in the inspections in some Member
States, using the Treaty articles which allow it to monitor the
transposition and implementation of Community legislation.

3.4.
The Committee would stress the need for harmon-
ization between the criteria for the EMAS procedure and those
for this type of inspection; this would avoid a duplication of
bureaucratic procedures and, above all, would encourage SMEs
to apply the criteria voluntarily because they would be able to
adjust more easily to voluntary criteria. It would also help to
align the information obtained from each type of inspection.

3.5.
In line with its earlier stance in the opinion on the
implementation of Community environmental legislation, the
Committee calls for centralization of the information obtained
from environmental inspections in a European register which
could be held by the European Environment Agency. This
register would be kept separately from the national data bases
provided for in point VI.2 of the proposed recommendation,
thus improving the information available to all organizations
concerned about the environment.

C 169/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

16.6.1999

3.6.
The Committee supports the Commission’s proposal
to review the implementation of the recommendation after

two years. If need be, the case for a framework directive could
be examined then.

Brussels, 28 April 1999.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Beatrice RANGONI MACHIAVELLI

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Council Decision
establishing a Community action programme in the field of civil protection’ (1)

(1999/C 169/06)

On 9 February 1999 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under
Article 235 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal.

The Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment, which was responsible for
preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 9 April 1999. The rapporteur
was Mrs zu Eulenburg, with Mr Liverani and Mr Wilkinson acting as co-rapporteurs.

At its 363rd plenary session (meeting of 28 April 1999), the Economic and Social Committee adopted
the following opinion with 87 votes in favour and three abstentions.

1. The Commission proposal

actions, etc.). The Commission proposes the allocation of an
annual budget of 2 million euros for this programme.

1.1.
Civil protection measures, which are provided for in
the Treaty Article 3f, are necessary to deal with major natural
disasters such as floods, earthquakes, landslides and forest fires
which devastate areas of the European Union time and again.
Since 1985 the Community has therefore been working to
establish effective mechanisms, based on the principle of
subsidiarity, for reinforcing co-operation between civil protec-
tion players in the EU.

1.2.
In 1998, following the adoption by the Council of a
two-year civil protection action programme (1998-99), the
Commission launched several major projects in close cooper-
ation with the civil protection authorities in the Member
States. The purpose of all these projects is to establish common
rules and guidelines and provide for networking between
experts in the relevant fields.

1.3.
The civil protection action programme now proposed
by the Commission will cover the period 2000-2004 and will
help to ensure that the results of the aforementioned major
projects have a greater and more lasting effect. It will also
help launch new major projects in the fields of prevention,
preparedness, response and restoration and will contribute to
the continuation of existing good practices (establishment of
common rules and guidelines, training, pilot projects, support

(1) OJ C 28, 3.2.1999, p. 29.

2. General comments

2.1.

Introduction

2.1.1.
No matter what the causes of a disaster may be, it is
a fact that the effects — and thus the threat which the disaster
poses to man and his natural environment — are for ever
increasing and, because of their complexity, are becoming
more and more difficult to assess and contain.

2.1.2.
It is not possible to react effectively and efficiently to
a disaster unless the response has been planned well in advance
on the basis of a comprehensive risk assessment and unless
the measures to be taken by the organizations, institutions and
government bodies involved have been coordinated and
carefully rehearsed.

2.1.3.
Disasters obviously know no national frontiers. If EU
citizens, who are exposed to a wide range of risks, are to be
effectively protected and far-reaching threats to the environ-
ment are to be averted or at least minimised, assistance must
not be jeopardised by Member States failing to cooperate or
adopting different plans of action.