Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Communication from the Commission - Europe's Environment: What directions for the future? The Global Assessment of the European Community Programme of Policy and Action in relation to the environment and sustainable development, 'Towards Sustainability''
Date: 2000-05-24
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EU programme, action programme, environmental policy, project evaluation, sustainable development

18.7.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 204/59

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Communication from the Commission
— Europe’s Environment: What directions for the future? The Global Assessment of the European
Community Programme of Policy and Action in relation to the environment and sustainable
development, “Towards Sustainability”’

(2000/C 204/14)

On 7 December 1999 the Commission of the European Communities decided to consult the Economic
and Social Committee, under Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the
above-mentioned communication.

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 10 May 2000. The rapporteur
was Mr Ribbe.

At its 373rd plenary session, held on 24 and 25 May 2000 (meeting of 24 May) the Economic and Social
Committee adopted the following opinion by 70 votes to two, with five abstentions.

0. Summary of the recommendations

0.1. Whilst sharing the widely held opinion that
the
5th EAP’s basic approaches were the right ones and acknowl-
edging that the programme has produced a number of positive
results, the ESC is very much worried about the continuing
deterioration of the quality of Europe’s environment, which it
considers the single most important criterion for assessing the
effectiveness of the successive European Environmental Action
Programmes and European environmental policy at large.

The ESC deplores that the Global Assessment, despite
0.2.
experienced in
rough list of problems
containing a
implementing the 5th EAP, can in no way be considered as
a systematic detailed analysis of
the Programme’s scant
achievements. It regards this as the document’s fundamental
weakness. In-depth analysis is vital, not only to prepare and
implement the 6th EAP itself, but also for the future of
environmental policy in an enlarged Union. The Committee
therefore calls on the Commission to start work on this and to
present the results in a Communication.

0.3.
This Communication should address, among other
things, current shortcomings in integration strategies including
the inconsistency and incoherence of EU policies, the effective-
ness of environmental policy instruments, the massive gaps in
implementation and enforcement of environmental legislation
by Member States,
the positive and negative impact of
globalisation, the role of SMEs, the link between economic
growth and environmental protection, as well as the general
population’s attitude towards the structural changes in our
societies required to achieve genuine sustainable development
world-wide.

— a reflection on the division of labour between different
administrative levels and on the need for national (and
regional) strategic and sectoral environmental plans and
their coordination with future EAPs;

— specific strategies to further the consequent and full
application of the fundamental principles of environmental
policy enshrined in the Treaty;

— a broad definition of sustainable development implying
that the 6th EAP, besides addressing the quality of the living
environment within the EU, should also pay attention to
the impact of the EU’s development model on environmen-
tal quality in third countries, on European and global
resource use as well as on human health and the quality of
life;

— long-term qualitative and quantitative objectives at Com-
munity level for selected environmental themes, which are
established with the integrated participation of relevant
players and different groupings of the Council, as well as
timetables for their attainment both in the long and
medium term;

— a translation of quantitative objectives into objectives for

individual Member States where feasible;

— national and Community-wide sector targets;

— clear and detailed guidelines for future work on sectoral

integration at EU and national level;

— an explicit reference to the need to link up future

monitoring/reporting systems with the 6th EAP.

1.

Introduction

0.4.
The 6th EAP and the Action Programmes envisaged by
the Commission and expressly called for by the Committee
should, in the Committee’s view contain:

— detailed indications on how the problems experienced in

implementing the 5th EAP will be addressed;

1.1.
The Communication on the ‘Global Assessment’ (GA)
— which was submitted to the December 1999 European
Council in Helsinki — contains an evaluation of the overall
results of the EU’s 5th Environmental Action Programme
(5th EAP) adopted in 1992 and reviewed in 1998. At the same
time, it seeks to launch a debate with the EU institutions and

C 204/60

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

18.7.2000

other stakeholders on the future of EU environmental policy,
particularly with a view to preparing a 6th EAP. In accordance
with the Helsinki European Council conclusions, a proposal
for a 6th EAP will have to be presented by the Commission by
the end of 2000.

Parallel to the GA the Commission has submitted two
1.2.
working papers: one on the integration of environmental
concerns into Community policies and the other on environ-
mental and integration indicators (1). The first paper assesses
the integration strategies prepared by the different Council
formations (Energy, Transport, Agriculture, Industry etc.) since
the June 1998 European Council in Cardiff. The preparation
of these sectoral strategies should be concluded by June 2001
and be followed by their immediate implementation. The
second document describes the planned EU indicator system
(consisting of environmental,
integration and sustainability
indicators) and provides information on current and future
activities in this area (EEA, OECD, Eurostat etc.). Both aspects
— ‘integration’ and ‘indicators’ — play an essential role in the
discussion of the 6th EAP.

1.3.
Helsinki European Council also invited the Com-
mission to present a long term ‘sustainability’ strategy, dove-
tailing the economic, social and ecological dimensions of
sustainable development. This strategy — to be prepared by a
working group chaired by Romano Prodi and to be submitted
to the Gothenburg European Council in June 2001 — will also
serve as the Community’s input for the ten-year review of the
Rio process (Rio+10) scheduled for 2002.

1.4.
In this opinion the Committee will comment on the
implementation of the 5th EAP (section 3) and, partly against
the background of these comments, present a number of
suggestions for the preparation of the 6th EAP (section 4). As
the 6th EAP — unlike its predecessor — will take the form of
a rather short, strategic document, possibly to be followed
later by separate, more specific Action Plans, this fourth part
of the opinion will focus on some essential questions and
principles. More detailed comments will be made when the
ESC is consulted on the 6th EAP itself as well as on the separate
Action Plans.

2. General introductory remarks

To begin with, the ESC would like to point out that it
2.1.
has repeatedly emphasised the fundamental
importance of
high environmental standards in Europe. A high level of
environmental protection is necessary not only for the preser-
vation of living standards; it has also often been proved that
high environmental standards give business a competitive
edge. However, it is also clear that Europe may be penalised in
the fight for global markets by its relatively high environmental
standards. Or in other words: environmental efforts in Europe
are being increasingly jeopardised by other countries’ failure
to protect the environment.

(1) SEC(1999) 1941 and SEC(1999) 1942 of 24 November 1999.

Despite the fact

2.2.
that environmental protection in
Europe still has serious shortcomings, the Committee notes
that, unlike other globally significant economic regions, the
EU gives a prominent place to the environmental debate.
Politicians, businessmen and civil society organisations are
aware of the significance of protecting nature and the environ-
ment. The ESC regards this as a major societal and cultural
is clear to all
success story of
Europeans that comprehensive action to protect nature and
the environment is part of European culture. Calling on
interested parties to take part in the GA and the preparation
of the 6th EAP is therefore a particularly positive step. The
formations to
Committee calls on the different Council
examine ways and means to follow this approach, in particular
with respect to their work on sectoral integration strategies.

few decades.

the last

It

3. The results of the 5th EAP

3.1.
The GA concludes that ‘the Community has made
progress in developing its environmental policy and that this
is starting to lead to improvements in the environment in
certain areas.’ However, it also notes that ‘progress towards
sustainability has been clearly limited and that the 5th EAP has
not achieved its objectives.’ On the basis of the June 1999
state-of-the-environment report by the European Environment
Agency (EEA) (2), the Commission points out that the quality
of Europe’s environment — which the Committee considers
the single most important (albeit not necessarily the sole)
criterion for assessing the success of the programme — has
decreased in many ways and that without further action it will
continue to do so in the future. Fortunately, the GA also
highlights a number of positive results: besides relative success-
es in areas like acidification, ozone depletion or water quality,
these relate to more policy-related aspects such as the improved
technical quality of legislation and the planned use of a broader
range of instruments. The Committee welcomes the fact that a
large number of environmental regulations and directives have
been adopted in recent years. In some cases their impact on
the environment will not be felt until a future date. However,
it must also be borne in mind that in its future outlook the
European Environment Agency makes it clear that the requisite
environmental objectives will not be achieved with this
legislation alone.

(2) Under the heading ‘Some progress, but a poor picture overall’, the
summary table contained in point 1.2 of the report shows an
‘unfavourable development’ for eight of the 15 environmental
issues reviewed (climate change, ozone depletion, soil degradation,
waste, human health, coastal and marine areas, rural areas
and mountain areas), while in six cases (hazardous substances,
transboundary air pollution, water stress, natural and technologi-
cal hazards, biodiversity and urban areas) there has been ‘some
positive but insufficient development’. In one case (GMOs) the
development is uncertain.

18.7.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 204/61

3.2.
The continuing deterioration of Europe’s environment
does not imply that the 5th EAP itself was a ‘bad’ programme.
On the contrary, the ESC shares the widely held opinion that
it was ambitious and far-reaching for its time, that the selected
themes and target sectors were the right
environmental
ones, and that
the basic approaches (integration, shared
responsibility, a broader mix of instruments) are still valid
today (1).

3.3.
The GA and some of the related documents prepared
by the Commission (1) briefly indicate a number of reasons for
the relative failure of the 5th EAP to set the EU and the
Member States on a more sustainable development path. These
include: economic and societal trends including increased
demand for environmentally damaging products and services,
insufficient commitment from the Member States, poorly
developed integration strategies and a lack of involvement of
the different economic sectors (the ‘ownership’ problem), the
failure to apply the shared responsibility concept partly due to
insufficient clarity about to whom planned action was actually
addressed, a lack of quantified targets and an inconsistent
approach to target setting,
the programme’s non-binding
character, considerable problems regarding the implemen-
tation and enforcement of EU environmental legislation, a lack
of political coordination between the EU Institutions and
Member States, and the poor visibility of the programme both
among the general public and within Commission DGs and
national ministries.

3.4. Whilst identifying these shortcomings is useful — and
all of them without exception must be explicitly addressed in
6th EAP — the above roughlist cannot, hide the fact that there
has been no systematic detailed analysis of the 5th EAP’s scant
achievements. Such an analysis is vital, not only to properly
prepare the 6th EAP itself, but also, in a broader sense, for the
future of European environmental policy in an enlarged Union.
The ESC regards this failure as a fundamental weakness of the
GA.

3.4.1.
Referring to the different ‘actors’ identified in the
5th EAP, the ESC would comment as follows on the reasons
which the GA lists but hardly expands on:

3.4.1.1.
The 5th EAP lists the ‘public authorities’ as an
important actor. Here a distinction must be drawn at least
between the EU level and the Member States. At EU level, the
first point to be made is that, parallel to the integration
strategies developed by the specialist Councils, the Commission
should have detailed the current shortcomings in integrating
environmental concerns in other policymaking areas, including
the inconsistencies of EU policy and the lack of coordination

within the EU institutions. One of the questions here is
whether the wrong stimuli are still being given in many
policymaking areas, including the priority areas of the 5th EAP.
It is therefore important for the integration strategies of the
different Council formations to be agreed with the institutions
responsible for environmental protection.

The Commission should also have highlighted and
3.4.1.2.
eliminated the inconsistency and incoherence of
its own
policy. How often in the past has it not been written and
demanded that the volume of traffic must be reduced and that
transport, just like energy, must be used sparingly? The call
has been made in several documents for traffic to be switched,
for example, from road to rail. Far too little has been done
thus far, however, and traffic continues to grow steadily, with
road traffic increasing disproportionately. This will be the
main reason for the probable failure to meet the Kyoto targets.
However there is still no sign of any radical changes in the
Commission’s aid policy in this area (e.g. under the Structural
Funds or the Cohesion Fund) and roadbuilding continues to
be a priority area for investment. Building more roads often
generates more traffic and whoever is responsible for building
these roads should not be surprised if environmental objectives
are not met.

3.4.1.3.
The Commission should also have indicated much
more specifically whether the many positive environmental
demands and declarations made by the EU have in fact been
implemented. If so, it should have showed how this has been
done; and if not, what the constraints have been. Declarations
alone do not further environmental protection. The EU has,
for example, issued excellent communiqués about local public
transport (cf. citizens’ networks) or the promotion of renew-
able energy sources. But there is nothing to indicate that these
communiqués have been put into effect. For example, the new
environmental thrust of EU policy is not always clear from the
presentation of the budget. While only very scant support is
being given to environmentally sound measures which adopt
a new approach (2), vast sums are available for many an
environmentally dubious measure. The proper integration of
environmental protection into other policymaking areas, as
announced by the Commission also requires a massive restruc-
turing or realignment of the budget and, in particular, the
promotion of bottom-up projects in order to win over
businesses and public opinion for policy and technological
innovations (in the field of the environment).

3.4.1.4.
Also, the effectiveness of the environmental policy
instruments in place should have been verified. In the mean-
time enough experience should have been gathered in the
Member States, too, to ascertain where the strengths and
weaknesses of the various instruments such as framework

(1) See the documents Conclusions of the Global Assessment Stake-
holder Consultation 9-10 February 1999 and Member States’
contributions to the Global Assessment prepared by DG ENVI.

(2) For example, only EUR 11 million are available for the Altener
programme,
and the Commission recently proposed in
COM(1999) 576 to reduce the support for the (environmentally-
compatible) planting of flax and hemp (OJ C 140, 18.5.2000,
p. 3).

C 204/62

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

18.7.2000

legislation, market-oriented instruments and voluntary agree-
ments lie and what a sensible instrument mix might com-
prise (1). Such an assessment should also include a factual
description of the obstacles which have arisen so far when
applying the individual instruments. The reasons why so little
progress has been made to date with the long called-for
internalisation of external costs — and, thus, with the conse-
quent application of the polluter pays principle within the EU
— ought, for example, to be listed. The ESC stresses that good
information on policy effectiveness is essential
for many
reasons including the fact that without such information it is
hard to make accurate predictions about the impacts of agreed
policy measures (‘future scenarios’) and to give guidance to
accession countries on how to adopt the acquis with least cost
and most benefit.

3.4.1.5. Much attention should also have been paid to the
argument concerning a (partial) lack of quantified targets.
There is no mistaking that this is one of the weaknesses of the
5th EAP. However, the discussion about climate policy makes
it clear that even the existence of clearly worded targets does
not guarantee an effective policy. In Kyoto the EU committed
itself to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by 2008-2012
by 8 %, taking 1990 as the base year. According to the
European Environment Agency, this reduction will not be
achieved if the present policy continues, and indeed a 6 %
increase is likely. Nonetheless, the already foreseeable failure
to meet a clearly defined and generally accepted environmental
target is not having any recognisable political consequences.
In other words: the missing of clear targets is not the only
reason for the lack of success in the field of environmental
protection.

Apart from the aforementioned problems affecting
3.4.1.6.
EU departments and policies, there are also massive short-
comings in the Member States. The failure of Member States
to apply environmental legislation which they have adopted
themselves in the Council of Ministers, or their application of
it only under pressure (when taken to court by the EU), is
damaging to the environment and impossible to explain to the
public at large at a time when an attempt is being made
— supposedly — to alert the public to environmental issues.
The key nature protection directives (the bird protection
directive and the flora/fauna/habitat directive),
the nitrate
directive and the delaying tactics still being employed by some
Member States in not banning leaded petrol are typical
examples. Here, too, the Committee notes that there has been
no systematic assessment of what can be done in future to
address this situation better. It is possible to envisage not only
stringent restrictions, but also coordinated and coherent aid
policies (2).

3.4.1.7.
Public and private enterprise is listed as the second
important actor in the 5th EAP. The ESC considers that it

(1) Such an assessment could inter alia build on the EEA reports on
the effectiveness of box taxes (1996) and voluntary agreements
(1997).

(2) For example, agricultural support measures should help to
solve, and not to exacerbate, the current conflicts between FFH
areas/Natura 2000 and agriculture.

would have been rewarding to give greater consideration
than hitherto to the special environmental responsibilities of
businesses, but also to the limits imposed from outside on
these responsibilities. It expressly welcomes the numerous
initiatives which many companies have taken in the meantime.
The limits to industry’s commitment are, however, being set
more and more by, inter alia, the global framework in which
industry operates. It is neither in the interest of the EU as a
centre of economic activity that this commitment ceases to
exist, nor can it be in the interest of global environmental
protection that industries move away from the EU because of
the unduly high standards and set up business in countries
with low or no environmental standards. As long as there are
no satisfactory worldwide rules (set, for example, by the WTO)
with regard to environmental standards, the EU must develop
and implement its own strategy for the requisite higher
environmental standards so that Europe’s businesses and
Europe’s environment do not suffer. The same applies more
or less in the case of farmers and EU agricultural policy. The
ESC would refer here, by way of example, to its opinion (3) on
consolidating the European agricultural model, in which it is
is not
made clear that the ‘European agricultural model’
feasible under world market conditions. The GA does not
include an assessment of these matters, which also might have
referred to globalisation’s positive impact on the environment
(such as the competitive advantages stemming from process
or product innovations driven by environmental policy).

3.4.1.8.
The ESC also notices that nothing is said about the
situation of SMEs. Many of these enterprises have been unable
hitherto to afford environmental experts of their own. SMEs
presumably have the greatest problems in adapting. They often
lack the requisite information about environmental policy
objectives and possible strategies. Considerable allowance
ought to be made for this fact when the shortcomings are
analysed. The 6th EAP ought to indicate how these enterprises
in particular can be helped to meet the challenges successfully.
This includes involving SMEs closely in the preparation of
programmes and actions and finding broad support for the
requisite measures.

3.4.1.9.
Finally, it should be pointed out that environmental
policy cannot be a success unless the general population’s
environmental awareness is sufficiently well-developed and
the political steps to be taken are not only accepted but
even demanded. Environmental awareness and environmental
training are thus key factors in a successful environmental
policy. Here, too, the ESC notices that there is no thorough
analysis or description of the situation. It is a matter of great
concern that environmental protection is referred to much less
frequently as an important political task and that public
opinion seems to assume that there is an inherent conflict
between the economy and the environment. This is an
extremely bad position from which to proceed with innovative
actions to protect the environment.

3.4.1.10.
In the past, environmental training was not given
the importance it should have been given at many levels.
Innovative environmental
training must not only convey
knowledge to the public at large but also promote a basic
sense of responsibility towards future generations and other
living things. And at the same time, despite man’s complex

(3) OJ C 368, 20.12.1999.

18.7.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 204/63

relationship with the environment,
it must help explain
decisions to each individual citizen. Environmental organis-
ations have an important role to play here.

— which would also enable a more just distribution of natural
resources worldwide as well as a shift from heavily polluting
to cleaner production processes) (6).

3.4.2.
Thus, one problem is that while the Commission
may list part of the reasons for the limited success of the
5th EAP mentioned above, it does not address them. Another
problem is the failure to even raise very basic issues. This
concerns in particular the questions of under what conditions
economic growth and environmental protection are compat-
ible and how the massive use of resources is to be avoided (1).
In other words, the question should have been asked of how
environmental damage and natural resource use can be de-
coupled from economic growth, not only in relative but also
in absolute terms, in order to produce ‘qualitative growth’, i.e.
growth which does not damage the environment (2). The
Committee doubts whether environmental policy based solely
on technological measures [such as desulphurisation of flue
gases, the use of catalytic converters in cars etc. (3)] can in all
cases reverse the environmental damage caused by ongoing
economic growth (‘absolute decoupling’). Since the marginal
costs of abatement
technology increase rapidly once the
potential for ‘easy’ measures has been exhausted, there is even
a risk that — where a technology-based approach does lead to
a relative or absolute de-coupling in the short and medium
term — countries will in the longer run witness a process of
re-coupling, at least for a number of persistent environmental
problems such as climate change or waste (4). This analysis
raises the question of whether, besides technological measures,
structural changes in our economies are not also required to
achieve a radical reduction in absolute resource use under-
pinned by increased eco-efficiency — the ‘factor ten’ concept (5)

(1) See for more general aspects of this question the 1995 ESC
Opinion on economic growth and the environment — OJ C 155,
21.6.1995.

(2) In its opinion on the EU economy: 1999 review (OJ C 140,
18.5.2000, p. 44) the ESC pointed out once again that the EU
must have a medium-term growth objective of at least 3,5 % if a
satisfactory reduction in unemployment is to be achieved.

(3) The Commission document states that end-of-pipe environmental
protection has scored a number of quite remarkable successes. It
mentions, for example, that there have already been or are likely
levels, e.g.
to be significant reductions in certain pollutant
emissions of SO2 or NOx, where according to the Commission
document a 70-80 % reduction is likely by the year 2010 thanks
to the replacement of old motor vehicles by new ones equipped
with catalytic converters.

(4) In the Netherlands, for instance, data on the relationship between
GDP and environmental pressures in the 1985-1997 period show
that alongside examples of relative (and sometimes even absolute)
decoupling, there have also been cases of recoupling, e.g. for toxic
and hazardous substances (see for more details the Dutch 1998
Environmental Index).

(5) In other words, a ten times higher energy and environmental
efficiency than is possible with present production methods.

3.4.2.1.
One important problem, however, is that it is still
frequently believed that technical solutions can be found to
environmental problems. No broad consensus has been
reached throughout society on the fact that our system of
production, consumption and service provision and the more
specific sectors involved in this system (such as energy,
transport and agricultural policy) will have to undergo structur-
al changes, which in many cases will have to be spectacular.
At the same time, current trends point in a completely different
direction. Thus, according to the Commission document,
foreseeable world economic trends and the further growth in
trade worldwide will result in the even greater exploitation of
limited natural resources. Seen in global terms, the adoption
of western industrial nations’ patterns of behaviour by a large
proportion of the world’s population, taken in conjunction
with the growth in the world population and the rise in per
capita GDP, will result in a threefold increase in CO2 emissions
by the year 2050. At the same time, however, estimates show
that these need to fall by at least 35 % by 2010 if long-term
temperature increases are to be limited to 1,5° by 2100. This
example clearly shows the magnitude of the required changes.
The structural changes which industrial nations undergo will
thus have to be far-reaching, as will the new models for
(sustainable) economic development in Second, Third and
Fourth World countries. Because of its economic significance
and its own disproportionately high consumption of resources,
but also its responsibilities and innovative potential,
the
European Union ought to take a lead in these de-coupling
processes. However, some of the required changes are so far-
reaching that agreement on the matter is still a long way off
both in the EU and the international community of nations
and within individual nations, i.e. between governments, the
two sides of industry and the other representatives of civil
society. The reasons for this are numerous and,
in part,
understandable. Mankind is afraid of major changes or quan-
tum leaps (even when the latter are ‘only’ technological).
Therefore, one important task of environmental policy is that
it should convince all the aforementioned players (i.e. the
public authorities and politicians, public and private enterprise
and the public at large) that quantum leaps, such as the factor-
10 concept, are not only necessary but also make sense and
are positively feasible. The Committee stresses that, in order to
be successful, EU environmental policy must as far as possible

(6) A recent PhD thesis Economic growth and the environment: an
empirical analysis (S. de Bruyn, Amsterdam, 1999) concludes
that in contrast to what is often assumed, the environmental
performance of countries with higher economic growth rates is
inferior to that of countries with lower growth rates. The study
argues that this is because the ’environmental productivity’ (i.e. the
amount of environmental damage necessary to generate a certain
amount of income) in the longer run is unable to keep pace with
increasing economic growth.

C 204/64

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

18.7.2000

be based on a consensus between all interested parties on the
possibly far-reaching objectives and targets to be met and the
timeframe for meeting them.

3.5.
Even if the requisite analysis of the problems experi-
enced in implementing the 5th EAP — and in developing and
executing EU environmental policy at large — can no longer
be performed in time for preparing the 6th EAP, the ESC
thinks that, particularly with a view to its implementation and
the future of EU environmental policy in an enlarged Europe,
it is essential to start work on this and to present the results in
a Communication addressed to the Council, the Parliament
and the ESC/COR. This Communication could build on the
planned study on the effectiveness of European environmental
policy recently commissioned by the EEA.

4. Towards a 6th EAP

4.1.

Introduction

Taking into account

the planned nature of

the
4.1.1.
6th EAP as a short, strategic document, this third part of the
Opinion, rather than looking into specific environmental
problems in great detail, will present a number of general
suggestions about the structure and main elements of the
6th EAP and the thematic Action Programmes envisaged by
the Commission and expressly called for by the Committee.

In line with the comments made in section 3 above,
4.1.2.
the Committee calls on the Commission to set out, in the new
programme, how the problems experienced in implementing
the 5th EAP — as well as the other factors mentioned — will
be addressed. Should this not be done, the Committee fears
that the 6th EAP, like its predecessor, will only have a limited
success.

4.1.3.
The Committee has taken note of the Commission’s
intention to first propose a (legally binding) general framework
programme (the actual 6th EAP) and then possibly to follow
this later with separate, more specific Action Plans. It agrees
with this approach on the express condition that these specific
Action Plans are actually drawn up and are adopted by co-
decision, in exactly the same way as the framework programme
itself. Given the reasons for this approach — namely, the
Commission’s fear that an unduly detailed programme will
lead to an interinstitutional stalemate — the ESC would also
like to stress that the Commission should not forsake its
traditional leading role in the field of environmental policy.
Because of its right to initiate legislation it should continue to
present progressive proposals. In the further stages of the
decision-making process there will still be room to find a
compromise between conflicting interests.

4.1.4.
The ESC welcomes the proposed new issues that the
6th EAP will have to address: chemicals, GMOs, soil (1) and
resource use. However, the ESC finds it completely incompre-
hensible for such a complex challenge as the accession of
12 new Member States not to be listed as a new priority
concern, but to be simply mentioned almost in passing in the
GA as boiling down to nothing more than their adoption of
the acquis.

4.1.5.
The Committee underlines, furthermore, that if only
for the sake of consistency, account should be taken of
Decision No 2179/98/EC of 24 September 1998 on the review
of the 5th EAP (2).

Finally, close attention should be paid to the Com-
4.1.6.
munity dimension of environmental policy on the one hand
and the national, regional and local dimension on the other.
EU environmental policy and the 6th EAP cannot be expected
to address and solve all environmental problems in Europe.
Against the background of the Commission’s strategic objec-
tive of promoting new forms of governance (3), the 6th EAP
should recognise — perhaps in a more explicit way than its
predecessor — that there is a ‘division of roles’ between
different administrative levels, which is inter alia based on their
formal powers (4). This approach would require, among other
things, that the 6th EAP be complemented by similar strategic
and binding plans at national
(i.e. a
National Environmental Action Plan for each Member State).
At the present time, such Plans do not exist in all EU countries
and where they do exist, they have not been directly brought
into line with a European strategy.

(and regional)

level

4.2. Principles of environmental policy

4.2.1.
Based on an analysis of their use to date, the 6th EAP
should spell out how the consequent and full application of
the fundamental principles of environmental policy enshrined
in Article 174.2 of the Treaty (‘precaution’, ‘preventive action’,
‘rectification at source’ and ‘polluter pays’) will be furthered.
Whereas the 6th EAP should be the starting point for paying
increased attention to these principles, a more detailed assess-
ment including an overview of required measures could be

(1) The Committee considers the following problems to be particu-
larly important: soil erosion, acidification and overfertilisation,
and overdevelopment of land.

(2) OJ L 275, 10.10.1998.
(3) See

the

recent Communication from the Commission
(COM(2000) 154 final of 9.2.2000) on the strategic objectives for
the 2000-2005 period. In this document, promoting new forms of
European governance including building new forms of partnership
between the different levels of governance in Europe is mentioned
as the first of the four strategic objectives to be pursued by the
Commission in the five years ahead.

(4) The question has been raised for instance of why the 5th EAP
contained very ambitious objectives in the area of tourism, an
area in which the Community has limited competence.

18.7.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 204/65

subject of separate Action Plans. These could draw, among
other things, on the model of the recent Communication from
the Commission on the precautionary principle (1).

4.3. Objectives and targets

4.3.1. With respect to the overarching objective of the
6th EAP and one of the Union’s principle objectives, it must
be welcomed that the GA — in accordance with the Brundtland
definition — defines ‘sustainable development’
in a broad
sense. In the document it is referred to as development aimed
at the welfare of present and future generations both in Europe
and world-wide,
in terms of economic prosperity, social
justice, security, high environmental standards and the sound
management of natural resources. For the ESC, this definition
implies, among other things, that a future environmental AP,
besides addressing the quality of the living environment (in
terms of clean water, air, soil etc.) within the EU, should also
pay attention to the impact of the EU’s development model
on: i) environmental standards world-wide and ii) European
and global resource use. This should be spelt out explicitly in
the 6th EAP. Taken to its extreme consequence, such an
approach would lead to a radical global redistribution of
natural resource use on the basis of the available ‘environmen-
tal space’ per capita (2). In addition, for the ESC a broad
definition of sustainability also implies that the Commission’s
intention to put major emphasis on the protection of human
health and the quality of life is fully justified. The Committee
notes that the approach advocated here is also fully in line
with the general objectives of EU environmental policy laid
down in Article 174(1) of the Treaty, which not only refer to
protecting the environment and human health, but also
to prudent utilisation of natural resources and worldwide
environmental problems.

4.3.2.
The ESC suggests that this overarching objective
should then be desegregated into a number of essential
‘yardsticks’ in the form of ‘environmental themes’ including
resource use, climate change, acidification, air quality, nature
protection/biodiversity, waste, noise, dangerous substances,
soil and GMOs (3). Obviously, the main selection criteria in this

(1) COM(2000) 1 final. However, contrary to what happened with
this Communication, the Commission should formally consult
the other Institutions on such Action Plans.

(2) See for more details: M. Carley and Ph. Spapens, Sharing the

World, Earthscan, London, 1998.

(3) In its October 1999 position paper, the European Environmental
‘headline’
Bureau suggests the following eight environmental
themes in three different categories: air quality, water quality,
climate change, dangerous substances (all belonging to the
first category ‘environment and health’); spatial planning and
biodiversity (belong to the second category); and water and
material consumption (‘resource use’). The EEA reported on
15 environmental issues including soil degradation, waste and
GMOs.

context should be the Community dimension of the problem
in question. As resource consumption can to a certain extent
be considered a proxy for other forms of environmental
degradation, the ESC considers this theme of crucial import-
ance. Similarly, in line with the very essence of sustainable
development, the environmental impact of EU and Member
State activities on third countries should also be selected as a
priority theme of the 6th EAP. With regard to the environmen-
tal themes mentioned here, the Committee would also refer to
the complex relationships between various environmental
problems, which — more so than was usually the case in the
past — require an integrated approach. The same is true of the
sector strategies, which should not be separated as strictly in
the 6th EAP as they were in the 5th EAP.

4.3.3.
The next step should then be to reach consensus, at
Community level and regarding all of the environmental
themes referred to above, on the desired long-term qualitative
or ‘directional’ objectives. These could for instance be defined
in terms of ‘reduction of absolute resource use’, ‘maximum
allowed temperature increases’ (climate change), ‘no exceedan-
ce of critical loads and levels’ (acidification, air pollution),
‘good water quality’ etc. It is noted that the 5th EAP along with
several pieces of European and international environmental
legislation already contains numerous examples of such quali-
tative (and quantitative) objectives (4).

4.3.4. Whilst such (long-term) qualitative objectives can
play a useful role in giving broad orientations, environmental
protection — by analogy, inter alia, with economic policy
(convergence criteria in the run-up to monetary union, budget-
ary criteria for the Stability and Growth Pact, the price stability
target quantified by the European Central Bank, etc.) — also
requires quantitative objectives which are defined in concrete
terms and quantifiable. Therefore, the Committee — in keeping
with its 1996 opinion on the review of the 5th EAP (5) —
recommends that the qualitative targets be translated as far as
possible into (long-term) quantitative objectives, particularly
in terms of the required reductions of emissions (expressed in
terms of specific indicators such as CO2, SO2, NOx etc.) and
resource use (energy, raw materials, land, water) (6).Once that
has been done and the implications of the agreed qualitative
objectives have thus become clear, two additional steps should
be taken, perhaps in parallel. On the one hand, clear timetables
for the attainment of the objectives should be set, both for the
long-term and for an intermediate period. On the other
hand, the ESC would suggest examining to what extent the
quantitative objectives agreed at Community level (e.g. the
required emission reductions) can be translated into objectives

(4) See in this respect the Commission Staff Working Paper (Septemb-
er 1999) Key developments in the implementation of the 5th EAP
which describes the main achievements of the past few years in
relation to the key objectives and targets established in the
Programme.

(5) OJ C 212, 22.7.1996.
(6) Here use could be made of the EEA STAR database, which lists
many ‘sustainability reference values’ and ‘political target values’.

C 204/66

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

18.7.2000

for individual Member States. Obviously, setting such quanti-
tative objectives at national level would help solve the limited
commitment from Member States referred to in point 3.3
above.

4.3.5. Where the above approach is feasible, it is then up
to the Member States (subsidiarity!) to establish, by way of
quantified national sector targets, to what extent the sector in
question should contribute to the required emission/resource
use reductions etc. Such targets, the implementation of which
should be underpinned by measures financed by the EU, could
be based in part on the contribution of different sectors to
current emission/resource use levels. The Committee takes the
view that the sector targets proposed here are by far the best
way to overcome the ‘lack of ownership’ and ‘visibility’
problems mentioned in point 3.3 and that they should there-
fore be an integral part of any national sectoral integration
strategy. Establishing targets at national level seems to be a
more practicable approach than setting quantified sector
targets at EU level, not the least because the dialogue with
sectors (and branches) can be organised much more easily
within individual Member States. Nevertheless, the ESC con-
siders that Community-wide sector targets should also be
established, particularly with a view to providing a benchmark
for the success of the EU sector strategies.

4.3.6.
It is noted that the general approach suggested above
is at present being applied in the context of transboundary
environmental problems such as climate change (national
greenhouse gas reduction targets on the basis of the Kyoto
protocol) and acidification [see the recent Commission pro-
posal on national emission ceilings (1)].

4.3.7.
The general approach called for here could be
elaborated in different types of Action Plans. Besides specifying
the overarching objective and general principles of EU environ-
mental policy, the 6th EAP itself could lay down the environ-
mental themes as well as long-term qualitative and, wherever
possible, quantitative objectives. As this type of long-term
objective is not a priori linked to any specific timetable, it
should be possible to reach agreement on them within a
reasonable period of time. Subsequently, more specific the-
matic Action Programmes could be adopted at EU level.
They should link the various quantitative objectives to clear
timetables and contain quantified objectives for individual
Member States. Finally, on the basis of these national objec-
tives, Member States should prepare national Action Plans
(4.1.6) establishing, among other things, the proposed national
sector, and where possible, branch targets as well as the
measures required for attaining these targets. Furthermore, the
thematic EU Action Plans should be complemented by sectoral

(1) COM(1999) 125 fin, OJ C 56, 29.2.2000.

Action Plans at Community level on the basis of the ongoing
work on the sectoral integration strategies. However, these still
have to be very much improved, for example by applying the
‘integration criteria’ developed by the EEA (2), which should be
incorporated in the 6th EAP to give clear and harmonised
guidelines for future work on sectoral
integration. Besides
giving guidance to policy making at Community level, the
sectoral EU Action Plans would help Member States to prepare,
implement and monitor their own national Action Plans.

4.3.8.
To ensure a genuine commitment from Member
States and operators on the ground, the above-mentioned
qualitative and quantitative objectives must be established
— from the bottom up — through an effective procedure.
This procedure must
interested parties in the
Member States and at the EU level as well as the different
groupings of the Council. This would mean that the setting of
objectives constituted part of the integration of environmental
concerns into other policy sectors. This would take some time
to accomplish, but might in the light of the experience gained
from the 5th EAP, lead to a better end result.

include all

4.3.9.
Needless to say that progress towards achieving the
agreed objectives at all levels (European, national, sectoral) has
to be monitored at regular intervals. Furthermore, reporting
by the EEA and similar national agencies should as far as
possible link up with the environmental themes and objectives
contained in the various environmental plans. This requires
building a monitoring and report system in parallel with the
drafting of the 6th EAP and the EU sustainable development
strategy. In such reports increased attention must also be paid
to the relationship between GDP and environmental pressures.

4.4. Measures and instruments

Finally, the Committee would like to make the following brief
remarks on specific measures and instruments:

It calls for strong action to radically improve the
4.4.1.
implementation and enforcement of EU environmental law. It
suggests that
the Commission draw up and publish an
‘implementation’ Action Plan giving, among other things, a
detailed account (e.g. in the form of a ‘scoreboard’ as used in
the single market) of all breaches of EU environmental
law (‘naming and shaming’) and also describing positive
developments in the Member States. The ESC would stress that
financial sanctions (e.g. by applying Article 228 of the Treaty
or by ‘freezing’ EU transfer payments) are one possible way of
ensuring that EU legislation is implemented.

(2) See the EEA report Monitoring Progress towards integration. A
contribution to the ‘Global Assessment’ of the fifth Environmental
Action Programme of the EU, 1992-1999 (forthcoming). The
criteria described in this report aim at providing a common
analytical framework for operationalising the concept of inte-
‘insti-
gration. They address four main aspects of integration:
tutional aspects’,
‘integration tools’ and
‘getting prices right’,
‘monitoring/reporting’.

18.7.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 204/67

4.4.2.
It stresses the urgent need for a further internalisation
of external costs, with not only taxes and charges but also
other market-oriented instruments playing a role.

4.4.2.1.
The Committee reiterates its view that if charges
and taxes are well designed and comply with existing legis-
lation and with the competitive requirements of a globalised
market, they can be very effective in steering environmental
policy (1). The Committee therefore thinks
that existing
national tax systems must be checked in terms of their social
and environmental
impact and developed further. Special
attention should be paid here to the environmentally-driven
systems of taxes and charges in force in some Member States.

4.4.2.2. With a view to the harmonisation of such charges
and taxes at EU level (above all the planned EU energy tax), the
ESC also recommends the use of the ‘closer cooperation’ (or
‘flexibility’) clause introduced by the Amsterdam Treaty to
break the current deadlock (caused by the need for unanimity)
on such EU taxes.

innovations.

It considers further that

4.4.2.3.
The Committee also emphasises the need for
financial incentives to redirect investment and promote tech-
incentives
nological
should be developed — or expanded in cases where they
already exist — to find substitutes for unsustainable activities.
The ultimate aim should be that subsidies should only be
granted if they promote sustainable development, and that aid
for non-sustainable activities should be stopped.

conditions such as adequate sanctions in the event of non-
compliance are observed (2).

The environmental liability instruments can also
4.4.2.5.
help in this connection, ensuring better observance and
application of both the polluter pays and the precautionary
principles.

4.4.3.
The ESC recommends that the 6th EAP and the
thematic action programmes define the priority sectors, while
subdividing them into more precise categories (e.g., in the case
of enterprises: large enterprises, SMEs, services, etc.) so that
policies adapted to specific needs can be pursued.

4.4.4.
It calls for the consequent implementation of the
Aarhus Convention on access to information, public partici-
pation in decision-making and access to justice in environmen-
tal matters.

4.4.5.
It calls for further steps to be taken at international
level (WTO) to achieve the right balance between environment
and trade issues.

4.4.6.
to considerably improve eco-efficiency.

It urges the Commission to present specific measures

It stresses the close link between environmental
4.4.7.
protection and spatial planning. In so doing, it points to the
increases in population and economic activities, resulting in a
drastic rise in land use and the concentration of environmental
problems in certain regions and desertification of other areas,
and calls for EU structural policy to counter such developments
in future.

4.4.2.4.
The instruments which can be used to achieve the
environmental objectives include voluntary agreements. The
ESC advocates the use of this instrument, provided that certain

4.4.8.
It calls for measures to improve information and
raise awareness, inter alia by using the possibilities offered by
modern communication technologies.

(1) See, inter alia, point 3.2 of the recently adopted ESC opinion on
the Commission proposal on national emission ceilings — OJ
C 51, 23.2.2000.

(2) See with regard to this matter and the conditions mentioned here
the ESC own-initiative opinion on voluntary agreements — OJ
C 287, 22.9.1997.

Brussels, 24 May 2000.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Beatrice RANGONI MACHIAVELLI