Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the "Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the Community Environment Action Programme 2001-2010"
Date: 2001-05-30
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EU programme, action programme, environmental policy, environmental protection, environmental standard

C 221/80

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

7.8.2001

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Decision of the European
Parliament and of the Council laying down the Community Environment Action Programme
2001-2010’

(2001/C 221/12)

On 21 February 2001 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under
Article 175 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal.

The Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment, which was responsible for
preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 10 May 2001. The rapporteur
was Mr Braghin.

At its 382nd plenary session of 30 and 31 May 2001 (meeting of 30 May), the Economic and Social
Committee adopted the following opinion by 115 votes to one with two abstentions.

1.

Introduction

1.1.
The Sixth Environment Action Programme ‘Environ-
ment 2010: Our future, Our choice’ sets out to identify overall
objectives and priority actions for the EU’s future environment
policy. It follows on from a consultation procedure which was
initiated by the Commission in November 1999 with the
Global Assessment of the Fifth Environment Action Pro-
gramme (‘Europe’s Environment: What directions for the
future?’), and also draws upon the report on the state of the
environment prepared by the European Environment Agency
(‘Environment in the European Union at the turn of the
century’). It was further fleshed out with a wide-ranging series
of seminars and consultation meetings. The Committee played
an active role at this preliminary stage, drawing up a critical
opinion (1) which was discussed in the course of a seminar
with a number of academic experts and commented upon in
detail by the relevant Commission departments (2).

1.2.
Rational use of the planet’s natural resources and
protection of the global ecosystem are vital to sustainable
development: given the continued existence of a range of
problems, the new programme singles out those environmen-
tal aspects which must be addressed if sustainable development
is to be achieved. These include climate change, the loss of
bio-diversity and natural habitats, soil erosion and deterio-
ration, the growing volume of waste, the accumulation of
chemical substances in the environment, noise pollution and a
number of air and water pollutants.

1.3.
Sustainable development means not only a cleaner
environment, but the need to take account of the possible
socio-economic implications, with the aim of improving the

general quality of life for EU citizens. It also implies the
Community reforming its own system of governance so as
to reconcile not only socio-economic and environmental
objectives, but also the different ways of achieving them (3).

The new programme seeks to define objectives and
1.4.
targets, explains how it
is intended to use Community
environmental policy instruments to this end, and highlights
the action required in other policy fields. Special emphasis is
laid on the need to continue to integrate environmental aspects
into policies such as transport, energy and agriculture, and on
the importance of land-use planning and regional and local
initiatives to promote sustainable development.

1.5.
The global assessment gave a mixed picture of the
efficacy of EU environmental policy, singling out the incom-
plete implementation of EC environmental directives by the
Member States and the need for stakeholders to take more
responsibility for environmental protection efforts. The new
programme focuses on two aspects in particular: improving
legislation, and creating
the application of environmental
sustainable patterns of production and consumption by bring-
ing in companies and encouraging them to innovate, and by
providing more comprehensive, scientifically-based infor-
mation for the general public.

The priority areas for action, which the Commission

1.6.
identifies and defines as facing the greatest problems, are:

— tackling climate change. Objective: to stabilise the atmos-
pheric concentrations of greenhouse gases at a level that

(1) OJ C 204, 18.7.2000.
(2) Cf. ESC brochure 2001/2002 (available in English, French and
German) which includes the Commission’s comments on the
ESC’s proposals.

(3) The Committee is presently drawing up opinions on these specific
aspects (sustainability and governance), OJ C 123, 25.4.2001.

7.8.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 221/81

will not cause unnatural variations of the earth’s climate,
by means of a comprehensive approach and close
international cooperation;

— nature and bio-diversity. Objective: to protect and restore
the functioning of natural systems and halt the loss of
bio-diversity in the European Union and globally, and to
protect soils against erosion and pollution;

— environment and health. Objective: to achieve a quality
the environment where the levels of man-made
of
contaminants, including different types of radiation, do
not give rise to significant impacts on, or risks to, human
health;

— sustainable use of natural resources and management of
wastes. Objective: to ensure that the consumption of
renewable and non-renewable resources does not exceed
the carrying capacity of the environment, and to achieve
a decoupling of resource use from economic growth by
significantly improving resource efficiency, dematerialis-
ation of the economy, and waste prevention.

1.7.
The strategic approach therefore seeks to move beyond
a purely legislative stance, and to induce the necessary changes
in our production and consumption patterns, as well as
to encourage a consistent approach between policy-makers
working on the environment and those in related fields. The
programme puts forward five priority avenues of strategic
action which may help in meeting the environmental objec-
tives:

— improving the implementation of existing environmental

legislation;

1.9.
The part of the communication entitled ‘Policy-making
based on participation and sound knowledge’ ties the success
of Community environmental policy to: regulation stimulating
enterprises to innovate profitably, both in terms of their
market and the environment; broad dialogue, supported
by sound scientific and economic assessment, based on
information and data on the state of the environment and
on the pressure and driving forces behind environmental
problems; the role of research in helping us to understand the
nature of our interactions with the environment and their
implications; and a systematic evaluation process in order to
improve future policy and implementation. Dialogue between
the public authorities at all levels, socio-economic actors and
environmental and consumers’ associations is also emphasised.

2. General comments

The Committee welcomes the Commission’s proposal

2.1.
and agrees with the key points raised, including:

— the importance attached to environmental issues as an
integral part of a sustainable development strategy;

— that environmental policy should become a real and
integral part of all Community policies with a direct or
indirect bearing on the environment;

— the urgent need for greener land-use planning and

— integrating environmental concerns into decisions taken

management;

in other policy areas;

— encouraging closer cooperation with the market, by

involving both businesses and consumers;

— the need for stricter compliance with environmental
requirements on the part of Member States and regional
and local authorities;

— empowering citizens and helping them to change their

behaviour;

— encouraging better land-use planning and management.

— the advisability of involving and cooperating with busi-
ness, and of encouraging consumers to opt for more eco-
friendly products and patterns of behaviour, as part of a
more systematic, long-term vision.

1.8.
The Sixth Programme will be applied in the context of
an enlarged EU. The applicant countries will consequently need
to make a start on implementing Community environmental
legislation, with the support of Community financial pro-
grammes. Subsequent actions will have to reflect this broader
perspective. At international level, it will be vital for environ-
mental issues to be fully integrated into every aspect of the
Community’s external relations.

Under

chosen approach,

the Commission’s

the
2.2.
environment action programme limits itself to setting general
aims rather than quantified objectives; for each of the four
priority areas it simply outlines the problems, defines objec-
tives and lists priority actions. The risk that many of the
actions described will remain mere declarations of intent —
technical shortcomings and political
thwarted by inertia,

C 221/82

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

7.8.2001

resistance — must be forestalled, by establishing time-scales
for achieving the identified objectives, the practical arrange-
ments for pursuing them, how the various actions are to
interconnect and create synergies, and by specifying how
interaction and coordination are to be ensured between
Community, national, regional and local authorities.

compliance, it is also necessary to adopt a coherent package of
measures encouraging compliance and providing incentives
for exchange of best practice, transfer of eco-friendly tech-
nologies (which should be fostered by every possible means,
tapping the wealth of experience accumulated by Community
research programmes), and arrangements for identifying and
rewarding good environmental performance by businesses and
local authorities.

2.3.
The Committee backs the aim of integrating environ-
mental protection more fully into other Community policy
areas, and appreciates the work recently undertaken to prepare
a sustainable development strategy which would enable per-
iodic checks to be made on the overall results achieved. It
would urge that this integration be considered a priority at
every official level, in view of the gaps and inconsistencies
which remain in spite of the efforts made, and that the work
on devising indicators and methods to measure results, which
began with the Cardiff summit, be continued within each
sectoral policy.

2.4.
A dialogue was successfully conducted with all the
parties concerned during the preparatory phase of the pro-
gramme, backed up by reliable scientific and socio-economic
assessments using information and data on the state of the
environment, the pressures upon it, and the causes of its
problems. Dialogue of this kind should serve not only as
the working method for proper drafting of
the planned
implementing measures, but also as an opportunity to check
on the implementation of the different actions by those
responsible — Community, national or local authorities,
economic sectors, or representatives of civil society organis-
ations. The Committee regrets the absence of a ‘scoreboard’,
indicating progress in implementing all the planned measures.
Similarly, there is no provision for a preliminary series of
indicators which could be monitored immediately, in the light
of the assessment of the Fifth Programme. The Committee
proposes that the annual reports on the main environmental
indicators be supplemented with information on the state of
implementation of the planned initiatives, allowing better
evaluation of their efficacy.

2.5.
The Committee agrees on the urgent need to tighten
up the implementation of existing legislation, and backs the
Commission’s intention of taking more vigorous action in
cases of non-compliance. The Committee has commented
specifically on implementation and monitoring and inspection
instruments on previous occasions (1), and welcomes the
Commission’s recent moves to ‘name and shame’ non-com-
pliant Member States. It is also very interested in the proposal
to harmonise provisions concerning environmental crime (2),
on which it will issue a separate opinion. However, it believes
infringement or non-
that

in addition to sanctions for

2.6.
Progress needs to be made with implementing existing
legislation on the product eco-label and on the adoption of the
eco-management and audit scheme (EMAS) (3) for businesses,
but the Committee does not consider this measure in itself to be
enough to bring about ever-greater and more comprehensive
respect for the environment. A further creative effort is needed
to generate the conditions enabling market mechanisms to
recognise ecological added value, and for the public authorities
to streamline administrative arrangements, apply a green
procurement policy, and foster more environment-friendly
product design by offering new types of support specifically
for SMEs. The Committee will turn to this specific issue in its
opinion on the Green Paper on Integrated Product Policy,
currently being prepared.

2.7.
The Committee agrees with the Commission’s view that
subsidies must not, even indirectly, encourage environmentally
harmful activities, but should favour the development of
design and production processes for environment-friendly
products. The financial sector’s activities should also be geared
to this end. However, the Committee feels that the proposed
actions are lacking in substance, and calls on the Commission
to give closer consideration, in conjunction with the relevant
players, to the possible ways of implementing the actions,
singling out instruments to foster and reward innovation and
technological
transfer of more eco-friendly processes and
products under both integrated product policy and vertical
provisions.

The Committee endorses the strategic approach of
2.8.
involving all the relevant social players in achieving environ-
mental objectives, especially by means of educational and
training activities, including continuous training within com-
panies and sector associations. The Community must not
however stop at expressing this view, or imagine that simply
disseminating information is enough: it should become an
active player in the process, or Europe may become even more
fragmented in this area, mirroring the varying degrees of
environmental awareness in the Member States.

(1) Cf. ESC opinions CES 455/97 in OJ C 206, 7.7.1997 and

CES 448/99 in OJ C 169, 16.6.1999.

(2) Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the
Council on Protection of the environment through criminal law
(COM(2001) 139 final).

(3) Cf. ESC opinion in OJ C 209, 22.7.1999; regulation in OJ L 114,

24.4.2001.

7.8.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 221/83

2.9.
Land-use planning and management unarguably rep-
resent a strategic resource, but must be taken as part of a
broader approach ranging from urban development to trans-
port networks, from social activities (e.g. sport and leisure) to
those with a direct impact such as construction, agriculture
and tourism. The Committee supports the proposal to launch
a work programme to spread best practice and sustainable
is
urban development, but will wait until
implemented before assessing the practical effectiveness of the
instrument.

the proposal

2.10.
The Committee has already discussed climate change
at length, and considers the objectives and targets proposed to
be too general. In particular, it proposes that greater attention
focus on those sectors with the greatest emission problems, in
terms of either volume (electricity generation) or expected
increase (transport, services), and in which the inadequate
regulatory machinery means successful results cannot be
guaranteed. Practical measures need to be put forward urgently
in order to prove effective over a longer time-frame. The
Committee is also convinced that priority should be given to
innovative energy-saving approaches, at all levels and in all
sectors, partly under the sixth framework programme for
research currently being prepared.

the single market

2.11. While the use of eco-taxes is acceptable in principle,
their impact on the environment, economic efficiency, the
(also in the light of the
operation of
significant intra-Community trade, which would require har-
monisation of the corresponding fax policies) and European
industrial competitiveness must be carefully evaluated, as any
discrepancies between Member States or with other parts of
the world could generate serious distortions in competition
and development. Yields from tax and other fiscal instruments
must be channelled towards environmental
improvement,
stimulating energy-saving and the use of clean energy sources.

vation in Europe, largely focusing on the question of how to
reconcile agriculture and the protection of natural resources
by reversing the purely quantitative approach of the CAP
and ensuring more effective consultation between farmers,
environmental bodies, consumers and tourists in order to
trigger a virtuous circle for conserving resources.

2.13.
The Committee welcomes the importance attached
to the environment and health issue, and shares the concerns
voiced by the Commission, as illustrated by numerous earlier
opinions on the subject. It is vitally important to identify the
risks to human health of each type or group of pollutants. This
must be done on a sound scientific basis, with particular
reference to specific population groups and the long-term
effects of potentially hazardous substances. It is also important
to understand the workings of these substances and how they
penetrate the human body, in order to minimise exposure
levels and, in each case, to assess the risk/benefit ratio. The
Committee would also draw attention to the links between
health, food safety, quality of life and the environment, and
points to the views expressed in point 3.18 of its opinion on
food law and the establishment of the European Food Auth-
ority regarding the consequences of pollution on the food
chain.

2.14.
The Committee agrees with the greater emphasis
placed on prevention and precaution, especially where this
means encouraging and facilitating the replacement of danger-
It recommends
ous substances with less hazardous ones.
applying the precautionary principle in a measured and
balanced manner, with reference to the Commission docu-
ment, the ESC opinion and the relevant resolution adopted by
the Nice Council, which responded to a number of points
made in the ESC opinion (2). In adopting this approach, care
must also be taken to avoid distortions in international
competition to the advantage of economic activities in less
environmentally-aware countries. More particularly, the Com-
mittee calls upon the Commission to work in all international
forums for the adoption of identical environmental standards
as a legislative benchmark throughout the world.

The Committee supports the principle of protecting
2.12.
nature and bio-diversity, but regrets the generic nature of the
actions proposed (except for the extension of the Natura 2000
network). It also regrets that the suggestions made in earlier
opinions have not been heeded, particularly the opinion on
the assessment of the Fifth Programme and the own-initiative
opinion on forestry strategy (1). The Committee may sub-
sequently comment in greater detail on the legislation to
implement this policy. The Committee is preparing an own-
initiative opinion on the state of nature and nature conser-

2.15.
The Committee supports the Commission’s step-by-
step approach to assessing chemicals produced in significant
quantities and agrees that it is necessary to encourage practices
reducing levels of pesticides in the environment which give
rise to significant risks to or impacts on human health. It calls
for a planned reduction in the use of pesticides, accompanied
by use of organic production and biological integrated pest

(1) OJ C 51, 23.2.2000.

(2) CES 800/2000 in OJ C 268, 19.9.2000.

C 221/84

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

7.8.2001

management (IPM) techniques, and for the rapid finalisation of
the Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) and of
the Rotterdam Convention. The Committee also advocates
developing a single system for the testing, evaluation and risk
management of new and existing produced or imported
chemicals. It would however emphasise that this should be
backed up by measures to alleviate the harmful effects of using
metals, minerals and hydrocarbons. The Committee plans to
consider these issues more specifically when it examines the
White Paper on the Strategy for a future Chemicals Policy (1),
which is one of the programme’s cornerstones.

for

setting priorities,

The objective of ensuring that the consumption of
2.16.
renewable and non-renewable resources does not exceed the
carrying capacity of the environment is basically to be pursued
by undertaking the necessary analysis in order to establish
criteria
and by identifying and
implementing specific strategies to reduce consumption of
these resources. The suggested measures appear too theoretical,
and the Committee is surprised that the assessment of the
previous programme has not led to proposals for better
targeted and more clearly defined action to translate these
concepts into effective actions or incentives within a reasonable
time-scale. The Committee considers that all measures must
be carefully reviewed to prevent distortions in business
competition and competitiveness, and that a balance needs to
be struck between supply-side and demand-side action. In a
market economy, supply is basically consumer driven, and for
this reason the Committee considers that information and
initiatives to steer consumers towards more eco-friendly
products and suppliers must be a priority.

2.17.
In principle, the Committee endorses the challenge of
decoupling resource use from economic growth by signifi-
cantly improving resource efficiency,
the
economy and preventing waste. However, the practical pro-
posals seem lacking in substance, especially regarding preven-
tion and ways of encouraging an approach to design which
reduces the generation of waste and pollution throughout the
product lifecycle.

‘dematerialising’

The Committee stresses the importance of checking
2.18.
that the Member States implement the framework directive on
waste-management hierarchy, and especially of giving proper
weight to energy saving. The Committee also hopes that
highlighting quantitative targets will send a signal pointing the
general public and the relevant authority in the right direction.

2.19.
The Committee notes that energy saving and recovery
are only mentioned in passing, although significant results
could be achieved in this area, in both industrial and domestic
in waste management and in urban and land-use
settings,
planning. This indicator should be a constant
factor in
cost/benefit analysis, and warrants close consideration in
connection with the introduction of company environmental
performance reward schemes.

2.20.
The Committee emphasises that this programme
is an essential element in facing up to the ‘sustainability’
challenge (2), in which discussion centres on how to combine
a dynamic economy with a society offering opportunity to all,
and on practical measures permitting economic growth while
safeguarding the environment.

2.21.
It is now clear that the aim, both locally and globally,
should be to usher in an era of fair, sustainable growth which
undertakes to conserve resources for future generations. This
is the European Union’s approach in preparing for the Rio+10
summit to be held in South Africa in 2002. At the same time,
it is reviewing its sectoral policies and drawing up a scale of
priorities, based on the seriousness of the problems — or
rather threats — involved, the time dimension, and the risks
of irreversibility.

3. Conclusions and recommendations

3.1.
The strategic approach put forward in the communi-
cation should be reinforced by an indication of (i) the key
objectives around which the work of the Commission itself,
the other authorities responsible and stakeholders should
revolve, as well as of (ii) the integrated measures enabling these
objectives to be achieved. The document is unintentionally
undermined by the fact that the proposed list of actions seems
to be jumbled together without any apparent order of priority
and/or chronology. To remedy this, the Committee suggests:

— providing a summary table of

legislative and non-
legislative activities for the four priority areas, similar to
that contained in the Annex to the White Paper on Food
Safety;

— systematically setting out in a separate annex the prob-
lems encountered in managing the Fifth Programme
and the limits encountered in integrating environmental
policy into other Community policies, together with the
conduct of the different authorities concerned;

— specifying practical performance indicators

for use
immediately or in the near future, the bodies responsible
for implementing and applying them, monitoring and
evaluation timetables and suggestions for action;

(1) COM(2001) 88 final.

(2) OJ C 123, 25.4.2001.

7.8.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 221/85

— indicating medium- and long-term quantitative objectives
where possible, if only to facilitate discussion on realistic
targets and integrated actions giving some prospect, over
a planned timescale, of achieving the hoped-for results;

— identifying objectives to be attained at Community level
according to a pre-established timetable, and how to
incorporate them into national objectives, which local
authorities must be charged with achieving;

— explaining the higher

reference standards proposed,
examining their impact on costs and their distribution
among the different sectors, together with the impli-
cations for competitiveness.

3.2.
On-going, systematic involvement of stakeholders is a
prerequisite for meeting any environmental objective. The
Committee emphasises that involvement should be understood
in its broadest sense, covering all decision-makers at all stages
of the process and all possible methods and instruments for
training and educating authorities, businesses, trade unions,
sectoral and consumer associations as well as the individuals
concerned: taking the environmental dimension on board as a
basic value and encouraging the performance of environmental
services will be two of the most effective ways of shifting
behaviour towards more environment-friendly patterns. The
Committee calls for greater Community support in forging
voluntary agreements, including at local level, as part of the
announced framework regulation on voluntary environmental
agreements.

3.3.
Sustainable economic development in the applicant
countries, based on new, clean technologies and improved
environmental management, is vital to preserving their positive
environmental aspects — which are due more to their relatively
low level of development than to conscious choices. Raising
the awareness of the general public and of the authorities
and seeking their full involvement in appropriate economic
restructuring, and in plans for urban development and trans-
port — especially public transport — requires coherent
action regarding both the full application of
the acquis
communautaire and the necessary funding. The Committee
recommends greater clarity in identifying ways of redressing
the apparent mismatch between the aim of spreading high
environmental standards and the feeble resources made avail-
able for carrying out this operation.

Brussels, 30 May 2001.

3.4.
Rewarding more environmentally-aware behaviour, in
part through non-economic incentives (along the lines of
is globally a more effective instrument than
eco-labelling),
sanctions, which risk pushing problems elsewhere while failing
to provide the coherent environmental protection which is
needed as part of a world view. The development of more
environment-friendly production systems, processes,
tech-
nologies and products should be seen as a form of innovation
to be encouraged and rewarded, bringing all existing forms of
incentive for innovation to bear. The Community and the
Member States should engage in a coordinated and sustained
effort to disseminate good practice and transfer clean tech-
nologies across the various industrial sectors.

3.5. Market instruments such as eco-taxes and environmen-
tal tax reforms should be examined more closely in order to
assess the real benefits for the environment, and must address
the need for a harmonised approach at Community level,
without distorting competition within the Community or
jeopardising the competitiveness of European industry. The
Committee would strongly argue that, in keeping with their
name, such forms of taxation should be used to foster more
ecological products,
technologies and methods and/or to
restore the environment.

Tax incentives to promote technological innovation
3.6.
and guide industrial processes along more environment-
friendly lines are also appropriate, provided they do not entail
market distortions. In practice, enhancing the quality of life
may have repercussions, including higher costs for industry
and/or public finances: it must be ensured that this process
affects all parts of the EU equally, and does not penalise
European development.

3.7.
The Commission should step up and accelerate its
efforts to achieve consensus among all the Member States on
this point, making a more thorough assessment of the socio-
economic effects of applying these instruments in order to
make a convincing case for them. It should also play an active
role in international forums, especially concerning climate
change, offering itself as a model and undertaking to press
other countries and international organisations too - and not
only environment-oriented ones - to meet the highest current
standards. The aim should be to ensure fair competition and
full compliance with environmental protection requirements
throughout the world.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Göke FRERICHS