Opinion of the Commission pursuant to Article 251(2) (c) of the EC Treaty, on the European Parliament's amendments to the Council's common position regarding the proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council allowing voluntary participation by organisations in a Community eco-management and audit scheme (EMAS)
Date: 2000-07-31
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: environmental law, environmental monitoring, environmental protection, exchange of information

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Brussels, 31.07.2000
COM(2000)512 final

1998/0303 (COD)

OPINION OF THE COMMISSION

pursuant to Article 251 (2) (c) of the EC Treaty,
on the European Parliament's amendments
to the Council's common position regarding the
proposal for a

REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
AND OF THE COUNCIL

allowing voluntary participation by organisations in a Community eco-management and
audit scheme (EMAS)

AMENDING THE PROPOSAL OF THE COMMISSION
pursuant to Article 250 (2) of the EC Treaty

OPINION OF THE COMMISSION

pursuant to Article 251 (2) (c) of the EC Treaty,
on the European Parliament's amendments
to the Council's common position regarding the
proposal for a

REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
AND OF THE COUNCIL

allowing voluntary participation by organisations in a Community eco-management and
audit scheme (EMAS)

1.

BACKGROUND

The Proposal
for a Council Regulation allowing voluntary participation by
scheme (EMAS)
organisations
in a Community eco-management and audit
[COM(1998)622 – 1998/0303 (COD)], was adopted by the Commission on 30
October 1998 and was published in the Official Journal on 22 December 1998.

The Commission submitted the above-mentioned Proposal to the Council 30 October
1998 and to the European Parliament on 30 October 1998.

The Economic and Social Committee gave a generally favourable Opinion on the
Proposal in its Plenary on 26 May 1999. The Committee of the Regions decided on
28 June 1999 not to deliver an opinion on this Proposal.

The European Parliament gave its opinion in a first reading on 15 April 1999.

The Commission accepted 18 of the 59 amendments of the European Parliament and
pursuant to Article 250 (2) of the Treaty, the Commission adopted an Amended
Proposal on 23 June 1999 and forwarded it to the Council.

The Council adopted unanimously its Common Position on 28 February 2000.

The Commission supported the outcome of
Communication to the European Parliament, adopted on 10 March 2000.

the Common Position in its

On 16 March 2000 the President of the Parliament announced that the Common
Position had been received and referred to the Committee on the Environment,
Public Health and Consumer Policy. On 6 July 2000, at its second reading, the
European Parliament adopted 27 amendments to the Council Common Position.

This Opinion sets out the Commission's position on the European Parliament's
amendments in accordance with Article 251 (2)(c) of the EC Treaty.

2

2.

AIM OF COMMISSION PROPOSAL

The objective of the Proposal is to improve the contribution of EMAS to the
protection of the environment through the revision of the existing Council Regulation
1836/93 of 29 June 1993.

The Proposal extends EMAS to all economic sectors providing them with an
instrument to continually improve their environmental performance

The Proposal calls explicitly for the involvement of employees as one means to
achieve this continuous improvement of environmental performance.

The compatibility between EMAS and the international standard ISO 14001 is also
strengthened by incorporating ISO 14001 as the environmental management system
element of EMAS. This allows the elements where EMAS goes further than ISO
14001 to be clearly defined, namely compliance with environmental legislation, the
improvement of environmental performance, external communication and employee
involvement.

The Proposal promotes the participation of small and medium-sized enterprises
(SMEs) in EMAS by appropriate support mechanisms.

The Proposal provides for
increased visibility of participation in EMAS for
businesses through the introduction of a logo as well as for the credibility and
consistency at Community level of the Scheme.

3.

3.1

COMMISSION'S OPINION ON THE AMENDMENTS PROPOSED BY THE PARLIAMENT

Summary of the Commission's position

The Commission can accept 2 amendments in full (Amendments 1 and 2) and 7 in
part or in principle (Amendments 3, 16, 19 (2nd and 3rd parts), 25, 30 (1st part), 32
and 33 (2nd part)). The remaining amendments cannot be accepted.

3.2

Parliament's amendments on second reading

Amendments accepted in full or in part

Amendment 1 (Training of verifiers) (Recital 13)

It contributes to ensuring the competence, and maintenance of
environmental verifiers. This is part of ensuring the credibility of EMAS.

it, of

the

Amendment 2 (Incentives for organisations) (Recital 14a (new))

This amendment invites Member States to create incentives for organisations to
participate in EMAS which will strengthen the Common Position in making EMAS
more attractive to potential participants.

3

Amendment 19 (2nd part) (Fees of participation in EMAS) (Article 11(1) last
indent)

Applying reasonable registration fees will contribute to making EMAS more
attractive to potential participants.

Amendments accepted in principle

Amendment 3 (Support to candidate countries) (Recital 14b (new))

This amendment calls for providing support in the field of EMAS to candidate
countries for accession in the European Union. This is part of the pre-accession
strategy to provide for technical support but shall not imply more specific resources
to be dedicated to this process. In particular, this cannot imply providing direct
financial support to candidate countries but should be limited to the following
wording: “The Commission should provide technical support to accession candidate
countries in the seting up of the necessary structures for the application of EMAS”.

Amendment 16 (Exchange of data between local competent bodies) (Article 7(2))

Subsidiarity represents one of the guiding principles of the Common Position which
allows Member States to appoint national, regional or local structures to act as
EMAS competent bodies. This amendment is therefore building on this principle by
encouraging communication between these local bodies. This should in fact be
broadened to exchange of information in general, not only data (“exchange of
information” instead of “data exchanges”).

Amendment 19 (3rd part) (Administrative simplification for businesses) (Article
11(1) 2nd subparagraph)

is desirable. However,

Administrative simplification resulting from EMAS participation, in particular for
SMEs,
the wording shall be carefully chosen to avoid
lowering the requirements of EMAS for SMEs (“The system shall operate with the
objective of avoiding unnecessary administrative burdens for participants,
in
particular small organisations”).

Amendment 25 (Insertion of the full text of Section 4 of EN ISO 14001:1996)
(Annex I A)

This amendment includes the full text of the Section 4 of EN ISO 14001:1996 in
Annex I A and will contribute greatly to the clarity of EMAS requirements. Only a
small addition should be made in the form of a footnote explaining the provenance of
the text and where a full copy could be obtained, for the Commission to be in legal
compliance with the terms of
signed with CEN (European
the contract
Standardisation Body). The text of the footnote would be: “The use of the text of the
national standard reproduced in this annex is made with the permission of CEN. The
full text of the national standard can be purchased from the national standard bodies
the list of which is given in this Annex.”

4

Amendment 30 (1st part)
environmental statement) (Annex III, 3.1, 1st subparagraph)

(Information on continuing improvement

in the

Including a formal reference to reporting on environmental improvements is part of
the commitment to transparency which EMAS represents. However the terminology
used should be consistent with Article 2 (b) as regards “continual improvement of
environmental performance” which should be the wording used.

Amendment 32 (Use of environmental indicators by organisations) (Annex III, 3.3,
introduction)

is important

that environmental

It
information reported in the environmental
statement is understandable and comparable. The use of environmental indicators
may therefore contribute to this purpose. However, it should not result in an undue
burden, for small organisations in particular, by implying that they need to define
such environmental indicators. This is still a field under development and it would
not be the role of EMAS to require the definition of these indicators (“For this
purpose, organisations may use relevant existing environmental performance
indicators…”).

Amendment 33 (2nd part) (Guarantee of access to the environmental statement for
anybody) (Annex III, 3.6)

Ensuring that environmental statement is accessible to interested parties is central to
EMAS objectives. This should not however result in heavy procedures for EMAS
registered organisations and measures taken to ensure transparency should remain
proportionate (“guaranteed” to be replaced by “given”).

Amendments not accepted

Amendment 9 (Definition of organisation) (Article 2(s), 2nd subparagraph)

This amendment contradicts the chain of responsibilities prescribed by the Common
Position to define adequately the organisation to be registered under EMAS. The
competent body does not intervene at the stage of definition of the organisation but
may take action during the registration process if the definition of organisation does
not correspond to the requirements of the EMAS Regulation. In addition,
this
amendment suppresses a clause of flexibility which would have allowed for taking
into account potential issues regarding the minimum entity suitable for registration
under EMAS.

Amendment 11 (Scope of reporting in the environmental statement) (Article 3(2)(c))

The structure of the Common Position includes in particular a set of definitions for
the terminology used throughout the whole text. If the Regulation is to be clear to
potential participants, it has to be consistent in its terms and requirements which is
not the case with amendment 11. Furthermore, this amendment introduces elements
which are already covered elsewhere in the Common Position and this will harm the
logical structure of the EMAS steps on the way to registration.

5

Amendment 12 (Compliance with environmental
subparagraph))

legislation) (Article 3(2)(new

This relates to the issue of compliance by organisations with environmental
legislation and includes a requirement to grant registration to organisations only
when they are in compliance with environmental legislation. The objective of EMAS
is to help organisations to perform over and above this minimum. This intent is
already covered in the Common Position under
the environmental policy
implementation as well as the verification that organisations provide for legal
compliance (Annex V 5.4.3). However, EMAS is a voluntary scheme and
amendment 12 risks changing its nature by making it a substitute for environmental
controls, carried out by competent enforcement authorities within the Member States.

Amendment 13 (Frequency of validation of the environmental statement) (Article
3(3)(b))

Amendment 13 replaces the principle of yearly validation of updates to the
environmental statement by a reference to regular validation. This weakens the
transparency and credibility of the EMAS process. The environmental statement is
the visible part of an EMAS registration and therefore must bring about credibility
about its content, on an ongoing basis. It must also be noted that requirements
regarding validation frequency are confusing for organisations. The new Article 3.3
(b), as amended, refers to a “regular” frequency according to requirements defined in
Annex V 5.6 which in fact mentions only yearly validation.

Amendment 15 (Verification by ‘visiting’ verifiers) (Article 4(5))

Article 4 of the Common Position sets the principle that environmental verifiers can
work in all Member States wherever they have been accredited in the European
Union. The conditions for applicability are referred to in Annex V. Amendment 15
repeats some and modifies others of the conditions defined in Annex V. This would
harm the overall consistency of the EMAS Regulation.

Amendments 18 and 20 (Report
subparagraph and Article 11(3))

to European Parliament) (Article 10(2) 2nd

Rather than preparing such a Report, it would be more appropriate to concentrate
resources on the working of EMAS. Information for the Parliament can of course be
provided on request.

Amendment 19 (1st part) (Preferential access to public facilities) (Article 11(1) 1st
indent)

This amendment requests an eased access to ‘public facilities’ for EMAS registered
organisations. It introduces an undefined and unclear concept which could thus not
be implemented.

Amendment 21 (Channels for informing on EMAS) (Article 12(1) 2nd subparagraph)

Information about EMAS is important for the success of this voluntary instrument.
However, prescribing the organisations to channel the information on EMAS may in
fact limit the scope of information and not suit the local conditions.

6

Amendment 23 (Protocol of intent on penalties) (Article 13, 2nd paragraph (new))

Amendment 23 requires Member States to agree on ‘protocol of intent’ regarding
penalties. It introduces an undefined and unclear concept which could thus not be
implemented.

Amendment 24 (Comitology) (Article 14(2))

The legal changes in the Comitology Decision require a Regulatory Committee for
the tasks to be performed by the Committee foreseen in Article 14 of the Common
Position, and not a management Committee.

Amendments 27, 29 and 41 (Involvement of workers) (Annex I B(4); Annex II, 2.6
(f) and (Article 1(2)(d))

These all relate to the involvement of employees (or workers) and of their
representatives in the implementation of EMAS. The principle of
involving
employees is already covered in the Common Position. These amendments add to it
by prescribing the channels and means to be used by organisations to involve
employees. Such requirements may in fact limit the scope of involving employees as
great differences exist from organisation to organisation, from sector to sector and
Member State to Member State. Disseminating best practice in this area, through
guidance documents produced by the Commission with a representative organisation
of employees, would be the most appropriate way to solve this issue.

Amendment 30 (2nd part) (Printed form of environmental statement) (Annex III,
3.1, 1st subparagraph)

Amendment 30 (2nd part) deletes the requirement for organisations to make available
a paper copy of the environmental statement for those who have no other means to
access it. Transparency is a key principle of EMAS and this amendment contradicts
this.

Amendment 33 (1st part) (Availability of environmental statement) (Annex III, 3.6)

Transparency is a key feature of EMAS but it should not be too burdensome for
organisations. Prescribing the submission of the environmental statement to the
public, instead of making it publicly available, as stated in Amendment 33 (1st part)
will increase the burden on companies, in particular SMEs.

Amendment 35 (Competence criteria for environmental verifiers)
5.2.1(b), (c) and (d))

(Annex V,

Annex V of
the Common Position defines the competence required from
environmental verifiers in order to fulfil the tasks devoted to them by the EMAS
Regulation. These competencies are thus appropriate and proportionate to EMAS
purposes. Amendment 35 goes beyond EMAS objectives
in the additional
requirements it places on EMAS environmental verifiers.

7

Amendment 36 (Verification frequency) (Annex V, 5.6)

The added value of amendment 36 as far as it relates to ensuring a credible
verification process within EMAS is not very clear. In any case, the frequency of
verification cannot depend on the results of the previous statement. Firstly, because
this could be understood differently (environmental results of the organisation or
efficiency of the environmental management system); secondly, because one of the
main elements is to determine if the environmental management system functions
well or not through appropriate verification.

Amendment 37 (Criteria for assessing significance of impact) (Annex VI, 6.1, 1st
paragraph)

Amendment 37 introduces elements not relating to the assessment of environmental
impacts as defined in Annex VI 6.4 of the Common Position.

Amendment 38/46 (Validation frequency of the environmental statement) (Article 3
(3a)(new))

if

these criteria are cumulative or not. Secondly,

Amendment 38/46 weakens the transparency and credibility of the EMAS process by
authorising extension of the validation frequency of the environmental statement
from 12 to a maximum of 36 months on the basis of five criteria. Firstly, it is not
clear
the experience with
environmental management systems (EMS) is more a criteria used to define the
verification frequency but not to determine the validation frequency of external
reports. Thirdly, one of the cases concerns SMEs which means companies up to 250
employees. There is no link between the number of employees and the impact on the
environment. Thus, this would allow a 3 person organisation, with high impact on
the environment, to report only every 3-years. This would act against the credibility
of EMAS. Finally, the last case does not reflect the logic of EMAS. An EMAS
registered organisation is in a loop of improvement. Changes may be minor one year
but no changes at all is very unlikely and the proposed amendment would encourage
organisations to remain passive.

Amendment 49 (Introduction of environmental policy) (Article 1(2)(a)(b))

Amendment 49 introduces environmental policy as a step prior to the establishment
of the environmental management system. However environmental policy is already
comprised in the overall concept of environmental management system as described
in Annex I A. This amendment would therefore harm the logical structure of the
EMAS steps on the way to registration.

3.3.

Amended proposal

Having regard to Article 250, paragraph 2 of the EC Treaty,
modifies its Proposal as indicated above.

the Commission

8