Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on 'Sustainable urban development in the European Union: a framework for action'
Date: 1999-10-21
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EU aid, Structural Funds, sustainable development, urbanisation

C 368/62

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

20.12.1999

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on ‘Sustainable urban development in the
European Union: a framework for action’

(1999/C 368/19)

On 25 March 1999, the Economic and Social Committee decided, under Rule 23(3) of its Rules of
Procedure, to draw up an opinion on ‘Sustainable urban development in the European Union: a framework
for action.’

The Section for Economic and Monetary Union and Economic and Social Cohesion, which was
responsible for preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 29 September
1999. The rapporteur was Mr Vinay.

At its 367th plenary session (meeting of 21 October 1999), the Economic and Social Committee adopted
the following opinion by 87 votes in favour with 1 abstention.

1.

Introduction

The Communication from the Commission on Sus-
1.1.
tainable urban development in the European Union: a frame-
work for action comes in the wake of an intensive debate over
recent years on the increasingly complex and important urban
issues arising within the EU. The debate has been triggered by
the many initiatives launched by various official bodies and
further stimulated by the appearance of a number of key
points closely tied in with the subject.

line of

An initial and significant

1.2.
thought on the
question of a European urban policy emerged in the Com-
mission’s 1990 Green Paper on the urban environment, while
the expert group on the urban environment issued its Report
on European sustainable cities in 1996. For its part, the
Economic and Social Committee tackled the issue both under
its opinion on Europa 2000 + in 1995 (1), and with a dedicated
opinion in 1996 (2).

1.2.1.
In the same year the Commission brought the urban
issue to the direct attention of all the institutions with its
Communication ‘Towards an urban agenda in the European
Union’, which was received with great interest. The European
Parliament (3), the Economic and Social Committee (4) and the
Committee of the Regions welcomed the communication,
calling on the Commission to develop its initiative further.

1.3.
The arguments of those advocating a European dimen-
sion for urban policy were from the outset underpinned by

(1) Opinion on Europe 2000+ — Cooperation for European terri-
torial development (additional opinion), OJ C 133, 31.5.1995,
p. 2, point 2.6.

(2) Opinion on the role of the European Union in urban matters,

OJ C 30, 30.1.1997.

(3) Resolution on the Commission communication ‘Towards an
urban agenda in the European Union’ (COM(97) 197 — C4-235/
97) A4-172/98.

(4) Opinion on the Commission communication ‘Towards an urban

agenda in the European Union’, OJ C 95, 30.3.1998.

their views on the economic, social, political and cultural role
which cities — historically, the basic building-blocks of the
most urbanised continent in the world — continue to play.

1.3.1.
Further developments, both socio-economic and
institutional, have added to these reasons. Firstly, all the aspects
and effects of economic and social trends, from economic
growth to the growth of unemployment, the increase in the
quality of life to the increase in social exclusion, are concen-
trated — to the highest degree and all at the same time — in
cities. Secondly, all EU policy initiatives have the greatest
impact, in terms of either their direct effects or the way they
are perceived and judged by the European public, in these
same urban areas.

1.4.
Lastly, the challenge of sustainable development arises
and must be taken up in cities, and must be tackled from both
the environmental and social points of view. This means that
as a result of both the inclusion of these matters in the
Amsterdam Treaty and the EU’s environmental commitments
towards the United Nations under the Kyoto Convention,
consistent lines of action should be devised, necessarily linked
to a European urban policy framework.

2. The key elements of the Commission proposals

2.1.
The Commission emphasises that the development of
integrated urban management strategies is essential in order to
cope with clearly complex and inevitably interconnected
problems and to maximise urban potential. These aims could
be jeopardised by the continuation of traditional sectoral
strategies and by excessive dispersal of powers and responsi-
bilities among the various decision-making and administrative
levels.

2.1.1.
The essential precondition for integrated action is
to identify priority objectives. The Commission’s proposal
outlines four distinct but interdependent areas, and argues that
each of the 24 proposed actions, divided into groups according

20.12.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 368/63

to objective, may — and indeed, as part of an overall consistent
approach, must — have a more or less immediate impact on
the others. In one sense, listing the objectives under headings
does also put the problems — all of them of considerable
importance — covered by the framework for action into a
kind of order.

2.2.
The first heading is strengthening economic prosperity
and employment in towns and cities. As is pointed out above,
the majority of EU citizens live in urban areas. It follows that
many of the initiatives under the employment guidelines focus
primarily on economic development in towns and cities.

2.2.1.
Particular emphasis is placed on the option of
introducing explicit reference to the urban dimension into
Structural Fund programming. This is, in part, on account of
the successful results with the Community initiative Urban. It
is considered that the positive effects of this decision will
include a quantitatively and qualitatively important impact on
preparing and implementing integrated urban development
actions, as well as improved coordination with Community
action in the context of the trans-European networks. The
development potential of many urban areas is prejudiced by
their marginal position vis-à-vis the road and transport
infrastructure system.

2.3.
social
The second objective, promoting equality,
inclusion and regeneration in urban areas, is explicitly tied in
with efforts to strengthen Community policies to combat
exclusion and discrimination, as well as security aspects, on
the basis of the Amsterdam Treaty. These issues, which could
be defined as relating to ‘social sustainability’ are brought into
sharpest focus in urban areas. This means that the effectiveness
of initiatives to counter them can be monitored all the faster
and more clearly. Citing the new Objective 2, the Commission
also mentions criteria to identify ‘urban areas in difficulty’.

2.4.
The third objective is the most concerned with ques-
tions which have now come to the forefront worldwide:
environmental and ecosystem protection. Protecting and
improving the urban environment: towards local and global
sustainability is crucial, not so much to the economic future
as to the actual survival of towns and of the entire planet.
Activities, patterns of behaviour and situations having a
impact on air and water quality and on natural
powerful
ecological balances are clearly concentrated in urban areas. It
is therefore also obvious that it is here that all possible
initiatives to minimise such effects — which will have enor-
mous implications for future generations — must be put into
action.

in the environmental impact of the means used, to introducing
an eco-label and eco-management label for cities and towns.

2.5.
The last objective sets out to contribute to good urban
governance and local empowerment. Better vertical integration
of different levels of government and better horizontal inte-
gration within and between various organisations, in addition
to involvement of citizens and stakeholders in urban policies
is seen as crucial. EU action is not intended in any way to
infringe upon the principle of subsidiarity, but aims to help
improve the links between the different levels and encourage
the use of partnerships to deal with urban problems.

2.5.1.
One action is directed towards awareness-raising,
exchange of experience and capacity building for sustainable
urban development, to be achieved by using and developing
linked networks. Further actions aim to support innovative
strategies, security and crime prevention and improved com-
parative information on EU urban conditions.

3. General comments

3.1.
The Committee welcomes the Commission’s com-
munication, particularly the way the framework for action
revolves around four objectives which crystallise responses to
the challenges immediately facing all urban structures in the
EU, albeit to different degrees. They include employment,
integration and social cohesion, the environment and sustain-
able development, and efficient and participatory management.

3.1.1.
An especially positive aspect is that determined steps
are taken to define urban policy guidelines, demonstrated by
the clear awareness that Union policy initiatives must involve
a considered and careful assessment of the situation which will
created by these guidelines in the urban territorial setting,
which represents the basic fabric of European socio-economic
organisation.

The most prominent feature of the framework for
3.1.2.
action is that it casts an integrated urban policy approach in
practical terms, underpinned by identifying priority objectives
and pursued by means of a range of
interventions and
instruments. These include the Structural Funds and can, if
coordinated, be more broadly effective.

The actions proposed range from enhanced urban-
2.4.1.
oriented environmental legislation, through specific measures
concerning waste disposal, changes in transport patterns and

The Committee does however feel it should contribute
3.2.
to the Commission proposal with some comments on the
document’s general approach.

C 368/64

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

20.12.1999

3.2.1.
The first and most immediate comment is that in
drawing up the proposal, the Commission has had to remain
within the bounds of what is politically and legally realistic.
The document therefore focuses exclusively on the present
aspects and issues of the operational field represented by urban
centres. Although the appended document on ‘Challenges for
European towns and cities’ seeks to make future projections, it
labours under the same restriction.

run-down urban areas with high levels of social marginalisa-
tion. One action to combat social exclusion focuses on
‘second-chance schools’, but focus on this kind of continuous
training, which can play an important part in allowing people
to return to employment — or even better, not to lose it — is
lacking.

3.2.2.
Towns and cities, however, are in some ways compar-
able to living organisms, made up of all those who live and
work in them and subject to substantial — sometimes radical
— change. What effects will the marked, and increasing,
ageing of their populations have on the future of many major
European cities? What influence will the increasing number of
singles and lone parent families have on the demand for all
kinds of services? Has the process of deindustrialisation run its
course, or is it set to continue, and if so how far? Will
teleworking, with all its implications for demand for mobility,
become commonplace or will it remain at a minimal level?
The document gives little or no room to these questions,
which are far from exhaustive.

3.2.3.
The actions proposed by the Commission refer more
than once to the importance of promoting and maintaining a
balanced and polycentric urban system. This view, however
commendable, cannot be pursued through urban policies
alone. The vertical and horizontal integration the Commission
aims to encourage must be accompanied by ‘spatial’ integration
between urban centres, smaller towns and rural areas within
the same urban or geographical region. However, the EU does
thought.
not have the machinery to pursue this line of
The European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP), while
remaining within the limits of intergovernmental cooperation,
currently represents the only framework within which the
desired outcome can be sought.

3.3.
It is emphasised at several points that one of the
essential elements in successfully tackling the employment
problem is coordination of Member State investment policies.
From this point of view, integrated action as proposed by the
document is positive, but the jobs potential of the various
initiatives should be made clearer.

3.3.3.
The Commission dedicates a specific initiative to
urban crime prevention. It is important to recognise that
security has become a major concern in the minds of people
living in large and small towns. Pilot projects are doubtless
useful, but the ever-closer link between petty and organised
crime demands that local initiatives be tied in with coordinated
strategies. With the entry into force of the police and judicial
cooperation title of the Treaty of Amsterdam, those strategies
should from now on be coordinated to much greater effect.

Special attention should be paid to the question of
3.4.
immigration, which is an issue of prime importance in
European urban centres. Firstly, it augments population growth
and often levels of unemployment and exclusion. Secondly, it
raises the question of setting up appropriate infrastructures,
such as places of worship, and how to devise spatial planning
policies which prevent the creation or consolidation of ethnic
enclaves in the urban fabric.

3.4.1.
This provides an immediate and practical oppor-
tunity to check the reality of the Amsterdam Treaty’s vigorous
condemnation of any form of discrimination.

3.4.2.
Action directed towards ‘urban areas in difficulty’ in
terms of socio-economic marginalisation or serious environ-
mental decline should clearly be granted priority status in
urban renewal policies, but schemes for areas suffering urban
exclusion, such as an outdated buildings stock of
little
architectural merit or infrastructure which is no longer efficient
or adequate, should also be taken into consideration. The
Committee (1) has already expressed the view that the resto-
ration and modernisation of old buildings is very much in line
with the concept of a sustainable building sector; it stems
urban sprawl, stimulates employment and also enhances a
town’s sense of identity.

3.3.1.
Policies for social integration are becoming increas-
ingly necessary on account of the growth of pockets of
exclusion.
In the overall urban context, however, social
polarisation is occurring at an earlier stage, with the intermedi-
ate layers of society shrinking in size and having an ever more
precarious status. These factors should also be taken into
account when tackling urban employment and economic
issues.

3.4.3.
Conservation of the cultural heritage should seek to
do more than make urban centres more attractive, as indicated
in the Commission document. As well as making a major
contribution to historical and cultural identity, this heritage,
whatever its size, offers considerable potential for generating
wealth and jobs. What is lacking is a specific indication of
actions designed to bring this about.

3.3.2.
It should be remembered that long-term unemploy-
ment is a powerful factor perpetuating the problems of very

(1) Opinion on ‘Sustainable development in building and housing in

Europe’, OJ C 355, 21.11.1997.

20.12.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 368/65

3.5.
Economic and environmental sustainability is now an
urgent problem of global proportions, and the most telling
evidence is to be found in towns and cities. Sustainability is
tightly bound up both with urban planning: mobility, transport
and waste management, and with quality of life: noise and
atmospheric pollution. The Committee therefore attaches
particular importance to sustainable urban development, par-
ticularly in its environmental aspect, and has discussed the
subject on several occasions (1). The Commission proposal is
to be welcomed, but more must be done to examine and
highlight the potential benefits to employment of proactive
environment policies (2).

3.5.1.
Nevertheless, it remains important, particularly with
regard to the environment, that economic sectors be made
aware of their responsibility (3), and that citizens be well
informed and supportive. This can be accelerated and sup-
plemented by their participation when decisions are taken.

3.6.
There are essentially two sides to participation in the
context of urban policies. Understood in terms of a partner-
ship, it is a means of harnessing the contributions of a range
of institutions, management and labour, and public, private
and other economic operators to projects or actions. It is
therefore valuable from either a narrowly organisational point
of view, or in economic and social terms: it boosts the available
resources and stimulates the flow of suggestions.

3.6.1.
Participation by the general public as such is highly
important for society and also offers the extra benefit of
strengthening the feeling of ‘community’, which is increasingly
fragmented in present day urban areas.

economic, infrastructural and environmental problems. The
CEEC and the developing countries of the Mediterranean
region must be brought into the debate on sustainability and
urban development.

4. The Structural Funds and Urban

4.1.
The Commission proposal mentions the Structural
Funds reform (2000-2006), which specifies urban zones in
difficulty as an area for intervention. The Committee has long
expressed the view that use of the Funds in urban policy is
crucial to dealing with social and economic crises. It therefore
fully agrees that this need exists in the context of a properly
integrated policy of urban intervention, geared towards sus-
tainable development. However,
in the same opinion, the
Committee also called for a greater awareness of the weight
and political role of cities — something which does not yet
appear to have come about (4).

4.1.1.
In its opinion on the new Structural Funds regulation,
and more specifically on how it tied in with the problems of
urban areas, the Committee welcomed the draft regulation’s
strengthening of partnership but drew attention to the need
for the principle of partnership to be properly observed at all
levels of Structural Fund actions, seeing this as a key element
in ensuring that the ‘bottom-up’ approach central to the
success of the actions undertaken is retained (5). The European
Parliament has also spoken out in favour of greater emphasis
on partnership in connection with reform of the Structural
Funds (6).

3.6.2.
The Committee notes that the proposal ought to
place greater emphasis on participation and partnership, which
are more evident in declarations of intent than in the specific
action in this area. The role of services and SMEs in the
partnership is not adequately highlighted. Furthermore, no
attention is given to the way in which a lack of administrative
transparency distances the public and fans mistrust.

These observations also remain highly pertinent to
4.1.2.
the present proposal, with the added comment that while it is
important for urban issues to form an integral part of the
Funds’ reform, it is essential for actions for towns and cities to
be built into other programmes and, most of all, integrated
into the employment question and related policies.

3.7.
Issues specifically relating to urban policy should be
discussed in greater depth with the countries applying for EU
membership, as most of them are experiencing serious social,

The Committee (4) is particularly pleased that the Urban
4.2.
project was not be shelved, given both its political value and
the integrated view it took of the problems of urban areas in
difficulty, and therefore supports the decision of the EU
Council to continue the Urban initiative in parallel with
Interreg, Equal and Leader.

(1) Opinion on the ‘Proposal for a Council Directive relating to limit
values for sulphur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter
and lead in ambient air’ OJ C 214, 10.7.1998; Opinion on the
‘Proposal for a Council Directive relating to limit values for
benzene and carbon monoxide in ambient air’ OJ C 235,
27.7.1998.

(2) Cf. Opinion on the ‘Communication from the Commission on
environment and employment’ (building a sustainable Europe),
OJ C 235, 27.7.1998.

(3) Cf. Opinion on the ‘Proposal for a Council Regulation (EC)
allowing voluntary participation by organisations in a Community
eco-management and audit scheme’, OJ C 209, 22.7.1999.

(4) Opinion on the Commission communication ‘Towards an urban

agenda in the European Union’, OJ C 95, 30.3.1998.

(5) Opinion on the Proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) laying
down general provisions on the Structural Funds, OJ C 407,
28.12.1998.

(6) Resolution on the proposal for a Council Regulation laying down
general provisions on the Structural Funds [COM(1998) 131 —
C4-0285/98 — 98/0090 (AVC)].

C 368/66

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

20.12.1999

4.2.1. While awaiting the new regulation, it is hoped that
the potential which Urban has succeeded in developing will
not be weakened, either operationally or financially.

4.2.2.
It is precisely because of this wealth of experience
with Urban that the importance of partnership in the use of
the Structural Funds must be underlined: Urban has involved
not only local authorities but also the social partners, associ-
ations and individual citizens in the way each of the initiatives
is organised and their aims.

4.3.
In connection with the identification of areas for
Structural Funds intervention, boosting Eurostat seems increas-
ingly advisable. Reliable figures are currently available for
unemployment and specific industrial situations in the various
national territories, but not broken down by service. Neither
are there proper statistics for urban areas: at most, some
incomplete figures have been compiled on a regional basis.
Eurostat data should be supplemented with more detailed
territorial breakdowns and definitions, partly in order to assess
the possibility of broadening the range of statistics available
for judging the admissibility of interventions.

5. Urban policy and territorial integration

5.1.
The Committee has in the past strongly argued that
EU-level urban policy should be firmly based on an overall
vision of the European urban system, a wider scheme to bring
development and balance, a strategy for combining objectives
of economic excellence with objectives of social equity, a
continuing focus on social cohesion in cities and regions,
an ability to combine competition and cooperation, and a
particular awareness of the need to link the outlook for
development — in which cities and towns are key players —
with the quality and style of life of European citizens (1).

Putting aside the positive actions it identifies, the
5.2.
Commission proposal nevertheless lacks a forward view
beyond the immediate future. However, this derives from an
obvious problem: no long-term urban policy can be devised
without the framework of an overall territorial policy, which
in turn must be more than just the sum of the policies of all
the individual EU countries.

The ESDP was created with the specific aim of
5.2.1.
drawing up such an overall policy. It is significant that it has
held two seminars (Lille and Salamanca) and a concluding
discussion, at the Brussels Forum of 2 and 3 February 1999,
on the European urban system, with special attention focusing
on polycentric urban development and renewed partnership

between town and country. The final ESDP text, to which
these discussions contributed, was adopted at the informal
Council of Ministers meeting in Potsdam in May 1999 and the
related action plan was approved by the following Council
meeting recently held in Tampere.

In an earlier opinion (2), the Committee welcomed
5.2.2.
the initiative, but drew attention to a number of limitations
upon the organisation and efficacy of the ESDP, which remains
an initiative at intergovernmental level and as such, is not easy
to tie in effectively with the Community level.

An awareness of this need is however apparent in
5.2.3.
the ESDP action plan approved in Tampere,
the overall
structure of which is geared to stimulating and promoting
closer links between land-use policies as a whole and approach-
es to the development of urban, regional and rural systems.

5.3.
It is clear that many of the problems involved in urban
sustainability arise — and must be resolved — within a broader
scope than that of the narrow urban area. It is equally clear
that in terms of immediate functions and spatial context,
towns and cities are bound up with territorial units much
larger than themselves.

In terms of strategic functionality, from the socio-
5.3.1.
economic and, in particular, the ecologically-friendly develop-
ment and global competition points of view, European towns
and cities are and must be seen as a network which needs an
overall political vision, cooperation, information and balanced,
harmonious development.

6. Comments, suggestions and thoughts on the future

6.1.
The Commission’s proposal brings together a number
of hopes, proposals and initiatives of past years; but, first and
foremost,
it marks the start of a new process requiring
resources and regular checks to ensure it achieves its full
potential.

6.1.1.
One of the top priorities is the establishment of
uniform, inter-comparable indicators. This objective is among
the specific initiatives written into the 5th framework pro-
gramme for RTD. The aim is to arrive at common assessment
criteria, based on a wide range of definite, agreed, indicators,
to enable both comprehensive monitoring of individual urban
conditions and a detailed evaluation of the results of action
taken. The urban audit, a pilot project
to compile and
compare indicators, which currently covers 58 European cities,
represents a valuable experiment in this area.

(1) Opinion on the role of the European Union in urban matters, OJ

(2) Opinion on the European Spatial Development Perspective

C 30, 30.1.1997.

(ESDP), in OJ C 407, 28.12.1998.

20.12.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 368/67

6.1.2.
The Committee welcomes the Commission’s bid to
create a positive information network for good practice and
current innovations in the area of urban policies in the EU. It
would also be useful, however, to have access to analytical
information on aspects that under certain circumstances can
reduce the effectiveness or positive impact of the action
engendered by the action plan.

6.2.1.1.
In this regard, the Committee would emphasise the
importance of advanced public transport policies as both a
decisive element in environmental protection and a means of
backing up social integration policies.

6.1.3.
This a matter for consideration by the expert group,
in its periodical evaluation of the implementation of the
framework for action. The Committee ought to be represented
on this group, which is to be set up by the Commission. The
group’s analyses and proposals could provide starting points
for debate at the Urban Forum to be convened regularly by the
Commission.

6.2.2.
The EU, which was represented by the Commission
and the Member States at ‘Habitat II’, has plainly demonstrated
its awareness and concern for the global vision of sustainability.
In the light of the framework for action, the exchange of
information on research and innovation in an urban context
and support for cooperation projects with third countries —
especially developing countries — should therefore be stepped
up, as part of the common drive to contain and reduce
environmental damage and promote sustainable development.

6.1.4.
The decision to set up an interdepartmental group to
conduct on-going assessments of the progress of the action
plan and the impact of Community policies on urban life
is extremely timely and in line with previous Committee
recommendations. A specific effort must be made to monitor
the results of the incorporation of urban policies into the
Structural Funds.

The information network, the expert group’s find-
6.1.5.
ings, the interdepartmental group’s results and,
lastly, the
study to be included by the Commission in the three-yearly
report on economic and social cohesion, must all pay particular
attention to the coherent development of all four of the
objectives set out in the framework for action.

6.2.
It may well be that the implementation phase of the
framework for action will unearth clear shortcomings or
delays within the various institutional structures involved. The
Commission openly recognises this risk. If this turns out to be
the case,
the Member States should be asked to adopt
appropriate legislation to enable the strategy to be carried
through with optimum results.

6.2.1.
The Committee backs the decision to use taxation to
support strategies for environmental sustainability and the
reorganisation of demand for transport. It would however
recall its earlier uncertainty (1) regarding the idea of pricing the
use of town and city roads. A move of this kind, unless
based on specific environmental quality-related criteria, would
inevitably accentuate the very social and economic polarisation
the framework for action is attempting to address.

6.3.
The Commission’s first evaluation of progress under
the framework for action is scheduled for 2002. That could be
the right time to set up a genuine action programme, based on
the objectives already laid down.

6.3.1.
A commonly quoted statistic in the field of urban
policy is that 80 % of Europeans live in built-up areas, however,
it is useful to contrast that figure with the fact that four-fifths
of the area of the European Union is rural. Development,
competitiveness, quality of life, service provision and a compat-
ible balance in urban and rural areas can only be managed
from within the context of global land-use management. The
new Commission will inevitably have to look further into this
issue.

6.3.2.
It is to be hoped that by combining the intergovern-
mental meetings on ESDP, the experience gained from the
framework for action, the findings arising from the establish-
ment of indicators and the experience that can be drawn from
Life, Interreg and Urban, it will be possible to produce a white
paper to set out urban and land-use strategies tailored to the
EU’s future demographic, economic and social requirements.

(1) Opinion on the Communication from the Commission —
Developing the Citizens’ Network: Why good local and regional
passenger transport is important, and how the European Com-
mission is helping to bring it about, OJ C 138, 18.5.1999, p. 7.

6.3.3. World renowned urban planners and architects are
predicting that the cities of the third millennium will sprawl
and lack real centres. The theory is also that the world’s future
will be dictated by 30-40 bloated metropolises. To the
European mind and culture, this scenario speaks more of a
nightmare than something to look forward to, and it represents
a further challenge to the European Union to come up with

C 368/68

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

20.12.1999

an alternative, competitive form of government, which is
compatible with urban and regional development, while

constantly concerned with the quality of life of all the Union’s
inhabitants. This sums up the challenges that lie ahead.

Brussels, 21 October 1999.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Beatrice RANGONI MACHIAVELLI

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on ‘Agri-environmental priorities for the
multi-function agriculture of Agenda 2000’

(1999/C 368/20)

On 28 January 1999, the Economic and Social Committee, acting in accordance with Rule 23(3) of its
Rules of Procedure, decided to draw up an opinion on ‘Agri-environmental priorities for the multi-function
agriculture of Agenda 2000’.

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 28 September 1999. The
rapporteur was Mr Colombo.

At its 367th plenary session (meeting of 20 and 21 October 1999), the Economic and Social Committee
adopted the following opinion by 93 votes to one, with four abstentions.

1.

Introduction

1.1.
On 24 and 25 March 1999, at its Berlin summit, the
European Council launched what it described as an ‘equitable
and worthwhile reform of the Common Agriculture Policy.
The content of this reform will ensure that agriculture is
multifunctional, sustainable, competitive and spread through-
out Europe, including regions with specific problems, that it is
capable for maintaining the countryside, conserving nature
and making a key contribution to the vitality of rural life, and
that it responds to consumer concerns and demands as regards
food quality and safety, environmental protection and the
safeguarding of animal welfare’. (1)

The reform is based, first and foremost, on Council
1.2.
regulation (EEC) No 2078/92 (2), which was adopted as an
accompanying measure
the dissemination
of environmentally compatible farming practices and to
compensate farmers for environmental conservation work.

to promote

(1) Berlin European Council 24/25 March 1999, Presidency con-

clusions. DN: DOC/99/1 of 26.3.1999.

(2) This subsequently became Regulation No. 1257/1999,

in OJ

L 160, 26.6.1999.

The regulation provides for the voluntary involvement of
farmers by means of individual agreements offering financial
incentives to meet specific technical and production-related
requirements or develop certain natural resources within the
farm. It has been the most important instrument to date in
terms of
integrating the environmental dimension into
farming policies.

1.2.1.
The most ground-breaking innovation introduced by
the Agenda 2000 package and the new recently-adopted
regulations concerns the establishment of a number of com-
mon rules for direct payments to farmers under CAP support
schemes. The Member States are to adopt the environmental
measures they deem to be appropriate, in accordance with
specific farmland and production conditions. These measures
may include aid in exchange for agri-environmental commit-
ments or direct payments subject to fulfilment of compulsory
general and specific environmental requirements. The Member
States will have to decide on appropriate penalties reflecting
the ecological consequences of failure to meet official uniform
standards for good farming practice, defined nationally follow-
ing consultation with professional farming organisations. They
can reduce or even cancel support scheme payments if specific
requirements are not met.