Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the "Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, th Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the sixth environment action programme of the European Community 'Environment 2010: Our future, our choice' - The Sixth Environment Action Programme"
Date: 2001-06-13
Institutions: European Committee of the Regions
Subjects: EU programme, action programme, environmental protection, sustainable development

C 357/44

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

14.12.2001

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on:

— the ‘Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the
Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the sixth environment
action programme of the European Community “Environment 2010: Our future, our choice”
— The Sixth Environment Action Programme’, and

— the ‘Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the

Community Environment Action Programme 2001-2010’

(2001/C 357/12)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

having regard to the Communication from the Commission on the sixth environment action programme
of the European Community ‘Environment 2010: Our future, our choice’ — the Sixth Environment
Action Programme and the Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council laying
down the Community Environment Action Programme 2001-2010 [COM(2001) 31 final — 2001/0029
(COD)];

having regard to the decision of the Council of 21 February 2001, under the third paragraph of
Article 175 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, to consult the Committee of the Regions;

having regard to the decision of its Bureau of 13 June 2000 to instruct Commission 4 — Spatial Planning,
Urban Issues, Energy and Environment — to draw up its opinion on the subject;

having regard to the European Community Programme of policy and action in relation to the environment
and sustainable development ‘Towards Sustainability’ (Fifth Environment Action Programme);

having regard to the Communication from the Commission on the Global Assessment of the Fifth
Environment Action Programme (COM(1999) 543 final);

having regard to the Commission Working Document ‘From Cardiff to Helsinki and beyond’, Report to
the European Council on integrating environmental concerns and sustainable development
into
Community policies (SEC(1999) 1941);

having regard to the Council conclusions on the Global Assessment of the Community Programme of
policy and action in relation to the environment and sustainable development ‘Towards Sustainability’
(8072/00);

having regard to the Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the Global Assessment of the Fifth
Environment Action Programme (CdR 12/2000 fin) (1);

having regard to the European Environment Agency’s Assessment Report ‘Environment in the European
Union at the turn of the century’, 1999;

having regard to Draft Opinion CdR 36/2001 rev., adopted by Commission 4 on 3 May 2001, for which
the rapporteur was Mrs Estrela (PSE-P);

whereas the Treaty on European Union requires environmental concerns to be integrated into Community
policy with a view to guaranteeing sustainable development,

adopted the following opinion unanimously at its 39th plenary session on 13 and 14 June 2001 (meeting
of 13 June).

(1) OJ C 317, 6.11.2000, p. 1.

14.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 357/45

The Committee of the Regions

1. General comments

1.1.
considers that the Communication and Proposal for a
Decision on the Sixth Environment Action Programme do not
adequately reflect the fact that during the period covered by
the Fifth Programme, and in spite of modest progress in a few
areas of some fields, the state of the environment in Europe
deteriorated from most points of view;

considers, under these circumstances, that for the Sixth
1.2.
Programme to constitute a legal
instrument with binding
decisions, it should be more specific and practically oriented,
it should set clear objectives and targets, where possible,
specifying figures and deadlines and it should provide and
identify instruments and indicators for its own assessment;

1.3.
consequently disagrees with the Commission’s basic
choice of a programme which ‘does not prescribe the precise
nature of the actions and measures that will be necessary’, and
recommends that the document be fleshed out so as to turn it
into a real action programme;

1.4.
considers that the programme’s role as the environ-
mental component of a broader EU strategy for sustainable
development, to be submitted to the June 2001 European
Council, should be made clearer;

1.5.
emphasises the need to integrate environmental con-
cerns into the two other sustainable development approaches
unveiled at Cardiff (economic aspects) and Lisbon (social/train-
ing aspects);

supports the view that an advanced environmental
1.6.
protection policy can generate many benefits, over and above
environmental ones, by for example promoting innovation,
new market niches, competitiveness, profitability and employ-
ment and can help achieve the objective set at the Lisbon
Summit of making the EU the most competitive knowledge-
based economy in the world;

welcomes the extension of the Sixth Programme’s
1.7.
duration to ten years, viewing this as the most suitable
timescale for achieving the intended results, although it does
recognise that this makes it all the more necessary to define
specific goals and indicators in order to allow for proper mid-
term evaluation and monitoring;

1.9.
is pleased to note some elements of its opinion on
the assessment of the Fifth Programme in this new action
programme, together with the express intention of identifying
specific actions and responsibilities at local and regional level;

considers, however, that since local and regional
1.10.
government bodies bear responsibility for such important
environmental issues as water supply and treatment, waste
management, public transport and land-use and urban plan-
ning, and since their political choices impact directly or
indirectly on almost all other environmental aspects, climate
change, nature conservation, health and public information,
the Sixth Programme should be worded in such a way as to
reflect this situation more closely;

1.11.
welcomes the European Commission’s stated inten-
tion of developing new forums for dialogue and the exchange
of experience with the general public and all interested parties,
and believes that the Committee of the Regions can and must
play a more active role in supporting these new forums;

1.12.
welcomes the intention of including the promotion
of sustainability in the EU applicant countries in the Sixth
Programme;

1.13.
regrets that the specific issue of the urban environ-
ment, which concerns 80 % of Europe’s population, has not
been properly tackled, even in terms of the land-use planning
and management approach;

1.14.
generally endorses the priority lines of the strategic
approach as well as the priority issues identified in the Sixth
Programme, subject to the following critical analysis.

2. Recommendations concerning the strategic approach

2.1.
recommends that the ‘fame or shame’ strategy on
implementation of directives, as announced in the Com-
mission’s communication, be properly reflected in the draft
proposal and that it should, if possible, be extended to cover
compliance/non-compliance with both regional/local
level
legislation and voluntary agreements;

1.8.
asks that both the mid-term report, scheduled for the
fourth year of operation of the programme, and the final
assessment, in the final year of the programme, be submitted
to it;

2.2.
points out that notification is a requirement (it is
mandatory anyway under certain directives) and hopes that
this instrument will be reviewed in cooperation with the EEA
with a view to gearing it more closely to actual circumstances;

C 357/46

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

14.12.2001

2.3.
recommends that provision be made not only for
better application of current environmental legislation, but
also for updating and fine-tuning this legislation; demands that
local and regional authorities be involved in preparing and
evaluating Community environmental legislation; and calls for
specific actions to be considered for increasing regional and
local authorities’ knowledge and understanding of Community
legislation;

supports fully the concept of

2.11.
the polluter pays
principle, by incorporating environmental costs into the price
since it corrects false price signals;

2.12.
urges that the proposed decision specify measures
consistent with the new guidelines announced by the Com-
mission for state aid and support with an environmental
impact;

recommends that

thought be given to extending
2.4.
the IMPEL network for exchanging best practice on the
implementation of Community legislation to the local and
regional levels throughout the Member States;

supports cooperation with businesses to achieve
2.13.
better environmental performance, but calls for explicit refer-
ence to be made to the special role which regions and local
authorities can play vis-à-vis the businesses and industries
located within their areas;

2.5.
recommends that the promotion of higher inspection
and supervision standards be extended to local and regional
authorities, while acknowledging that responsibility for such
inspection and supervision must lie at the lowest appropriate
level of authority, in keeping with the subsidiarity principle;

proposes that ways be considered of

2.6.
introducing
more stringent sanctions where Community environmental
directives are judged in court not to have been complied with;

considers that the mainstreaming of environmental
2.7.
considerations into other policy areas should be stepped up,
and suggests that the European Commission promote fuller
integration into its own policies, in particular through specific
descriptions in the relevant sectoral policy documents of how
it integrates environmental measures into key sectors such as
transport and agriculture;

2.8.
strongly recommends that ways of evaluating and
promoting the integration of the environment into sectoral
policies at both Member State and regional/local
level be
specified and defined;

2.9.
suggests that all regional and sector funding from
Community programmes be made subject to a favourable
assessment of the extent to which environmental policy is
incorporated in the specific projects under consideration;

2.14.
the integrated product policy which has been announced;

calls for more specific goals and instruments under

2.15.
urges that specific measures and actions for eco-
efficiency be introduced, and emphasises that the European
Environment Agency must be granted broader powers in this
sphere;

strongly backs the proposal

for a green public
2.16.
procurement policy, recommending the adoption of guidelines
to ensure that all public bodies in Europe, ranging from the
Commission and the Parliament to the Member States and
local and regional authorities, undertake to make all contracts
and purchases subject to prior assessment of the lifecycle and
environmental sustainability of the products and services in
question;

2.17.
agrees with the importance of having permanently
available up-to-date information on the state of the environ-
ment on a local and regional scale, but calls for the draft
information should be
decision to specify what kind of
available, such as sources and types of polluting emissions,
and to indicate the type of media to be employed for this,
particularly Internet;

2.18.
acknowledges and emphasises the irreplaceable role
of regions and municipalities as information, training and
awareness-raising interfaces for individuals and families on the
environment and good environmental practice and, in this
connection, draws attention to the advisability of encouraging
cooperation and exchange with schools and NGOs;

supports the more extensive introduction of eco-
2.10.
taxes and charges with a view to an environmental
tax
reform aimed at levying taxes on resource consumption and
internalising environmental costs, with a concomitant easing
of labour taxes in order to boost employment;

2.19.
is disappointed at the limited scope of the draft
decision regarding land use planning strategy, and calls for this
aspect to be revised and expanded, with consideration given
to measures to promote general rules for sustainable land use
planning in the EU,
in accordance with the subsidiarity
principle;

14.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 357/47

2.20.
recommends that specific measures and actions be
taken to support local bodies in meeting their responsibilities
regarding urban planning and the urban environment, includ-
ing swapping information about practices and experiences,
with particular emphasis on urban transport and restrictions
on the use of private vehicles in urban areas;

3.6.
supports the promotion of fiscal measures on energy,
but believes that such measures should not only be aimed at
greenhouse gases, but rather at all types of environmental
impact from all energy sources, in particular the production of
radioactive waste from nuclear energy;

2.21.
recommends that the use of regionally-targeted Com-
munity funds be made dependent upon an assessment of
whether they meet appropriate land use planning standards.

3.7.
it is particularly supportive of the priority action on
energy saving in the air-conditioning of buildings, on account
of the potential implications for local authority management
and the urban environment;

3. Recommendations concerning the priority thematic

issues

3.8.
acknowledges the specific role which will fall to regions
and municipalities in adapting to some degree of climate
change, in terms of both preparations to minimise its impact
at local and regional level, and support and information for
the general public;
it recommends that the draft decision
specify measures to promote urban planning which is better
adapted to this purpose, particularly as regards building and
infrastructure standards and an increase in the number of
parks — old and new — in urban areas.

Climate change

3.1.
welcomes the adoption of ambitious, quantified and
timetabled targets for this priority area, and supports the view
that climate change prevention should be viewed as an engine
for innovation, competitiveness and economic efficiency;

Nature and bio-diversity

recommends that the Sixth Programme assume and
3.2.
flesh out the EU’s firm commitment to meet the Kyoto
Protocol targets, as well as other, subsequent targets which are
beginning to look necessary, regardless of the outcome of the
international negotiations on this issue, with a view both to
securing the EU’s international leadership in this area and to
ensuring that the EU benefits from the advantages derived
from moving to an economy with lower greenhouse gas
emissions;

3.3.
recommends that internal mechanisms be devised for
imposing sanctions, also in the form of penalty payments, in
proportion to any Member State non-compliance, and that the
regions play a more active part in this by adopting regional
greenhouse gas reduction plans and goals;

3.4.
calls for quantified objectives and goals to be set for
reducing emissions in the sectors contributing most to climate
change, particularly transport;

3.9.
believes that the objectives for this priority area should
be reformulated to reflect the relative degrees of seriousness of
the main risks, with the principal overall objective being to
protect against the destruction of natural habitats and soil use
changes detrimental to nature and bio-diversity;

3.10.
recommends that certain priority actions whose
scope extends beyond nature and bio-diversity, or which relate
only indirectly to this area, should be placed under other
headings in the Sixth Programme. This applies to the coordi-
nation of responses to accidents and natural disasters, the
prevention of mining accidents, and protection against soil
erosion and pollution;

3.11.
recommends that moves to incorporate environmen-
tal concerns into agriculture and fisheries policies in future
reviews of these common policies make specific reference
to steps to integrate nature and bio-diversity conservation
objectives and the cultural heritage associated with them,
rather than to environmental policy in general;

3.5.
reiterates its support for the creation of an emission
rights trading scheme, but emphasises that such a scheme
must be explicitly extended to the EU applicant countries; at
the same time, it recommends that the ‘producer responsibility’
clause be brought to bear;

3.12.
recommends that the priority action on genetically
modified organisms make specific reference to the assessment
and monitoring of the risks involved for nature and bio-
diversity;

C 357/48

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

14.12.2001

3.13.
recommends that specific actions and measures be
adopted to develop and establish the Natura 2000 network,
with consideration being given to Community co-financing of
site management reflecting their respective Community value,
and extending Natura 2000 to the applicant countries and to
cover the marine environment;

3.19.
reaffirms the importance of providing the public with
continuous, up-to-date information on pollution from industry
and other sources, especially at local and regional level, and
consequently regrets that the draft decision fails to take up the
actions in this area mentioned in the communication;

3.14.
welcomes the inclusion of forests under this heading
on account of the implicit recognition of their multifunctional
role and value for nature and bio-diversity conservation; it
calls for priority actions to be defined for the conservation and
restoration of Europe’s remaining original and partly original
forests, especially in the applicant countries;

3.15.
advocates the adoption of a strategy to conserve the
marine environment, and recommends it be extended to cover
the nature and bio-diversity of coastal areas and estuaries,
especially as regards the impact of tourism and the potential
offered by innovative eco-tourism;

3.16.
recommends the adoption of a priority action to
promote nature and bio-diversity in urban settings, and to
restore areas of land and watercourses which have become
polluted, built over or covered up for no good purpose,
focusing on the positive effects of preventing and minimising
the impact of extreme climatic phenomena such as drought,
floods or landslides;

3.20.
welcomes the Commission’s proposals on a chemicals
strategy as well as the reference to the need for clearly
defined deadlines and dates for evaluation; it consequently
recommends that these deadlines and dates also be stipulated
in the Sixth Programme;

considers that

the Sixth Programme should also
3.21.
encourage the adoption of national, regional and local chemi-
cal safety plans;

3.22.
calls for priority to be attached to compliance with
the main international conventions on chemical products,
such as the UN Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants
or the OSPAR convention on the protection of the marine
environment;

3.23.
supports the overall objective of reducing the use of
pesticides, considering this to be compatible with more
sustainable farming, geared to quality rather than to quantity,
but regrets that the measures in the draft decision only partially
reflect those described in the communication, especially con-
cerning the elements of a future strategy for the sustainable
use of pesticides;

regrets the lack of world-wide action, and calls for
3.17.
practical measures to be considered for conserving bio-
diversity at world level,
in particular by using economic
instruments and market regulation, in line with developments
in UN conventions on biological diversity and trade in
endangered species and the need to implement these.

3.24.
considers that the sustainable use of water resources
should be brought under the heading of sustainable use of
natural resources, since the proposed measures on water
quality consist essentially of arrangements to apply the frame-
work directive on water;

Environment and health

3.18.
points out that Article 152 of the Treaty establishing
the European Community stipulates that ‘a high level of
human health protection shall be ensured in the definition and
implementation of all Community policies and activities’; it
therefore attaches the utmost importance to this area, agreeing
with the overall objective, but it does regret the piecemeal way
in which the question of environment and health is being
tackled;

3.25.
recommends specific and innovative actions relating
to the public health implications of water quality and water
supply systems, as well as measures to promote sustainable
and efficient management of water resources at local and
regional level, including the full incorporation of environmen-
tal and resource costs associated with damage or negative
impact on the aquatic environment, in pricing, in accordance
with the framework directive on water;

3.26.
recommends that actions on air quality reflect the
crucial role of regions and municipalities in monitoring air
quality and in providing the public with information, especially
in urban areas;

14.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 357/49

3.27.
agrees with the need for indoor air quality to be
assessed and monitored, given its potential impact on health
and the quality of urban life;

3.28.
regrets that there are no measures relating to noise
in the draft decision, and strongly recommends that the
Community directive on environmental noise proposed by
the Commission be supplemented with daughter directives,
especially on aircraft and transport noise and, more generally,
on the production of quieter forms of transport;

3.29.
regrets that the section on the environment and
health fails to deal specifically with the issue of food safety,
which is however a matter of fundamental — and highly
topical — concern to the general public in the EU.

Sustainable use of natural resources and management of wastes

considers that the objectives in this section should
3.30.
focus on dissociating resource consumption and waste pro-
duction from development, with a view to making develop-
ment sustainable, rather than dissociating them from economic
growth;

3.31.
recommends that protecting soils from erosion and
pollution be dealt with under this heading rather than under
nature and bio-diversity, and that both the restoration of areas
suffering soil pollution and steps to combat desertification be
specifically included;

3.32.
particularly and warmly welcomes the Commission’s
stated intention of increasing local authority involvement in
preparing legislation on wastes, and of encouraging the
exchange of information on experience and best practices
between local authorities;

3.33.
believes that free movement of waste material across
borders must not stand in the way of local and regional waste
processing solutions, while respecting the established hierarchy
of responsibilities;

3.34.
endorses the aim of giving priority to the prevention
of waste production and of building this into an integrated
product policy; it recommends that it be specified that this
policy should be extended to cover products imported from
third countries;

3.35.
advocates systematic application of the principle of
producer responsibility to all recyclable or sortable waste,
which is generated when products are placed on the market,
including not only packaging waste, disused vehicles and

electric and electronic waste, but also used tyres, used batteries
and accumulators, textile waste, construction/demolition waste
and some hazardous household waste. As a general principle
the producer responsibility should be individual and not
collectively shared in order to create an incentive for the
producer to develop more environmentally friendly products;

3.36.
welcomes the reference in the communication to
targets, with figures and deadlines, for waste prevention and
recycling, and urges that these targets be duly incorporated
into the priority actions in the draft decision;

3.37.
endorses the priority given to waste recycling, and in
particular supports the adoption of measures on construction
and demolition waste as well as on biodegradable waste. With
regard to the latter, it suggests considering incentives for the
selective collection of organic matter for composting;

3.38.
calls for the revision of the legislation on sludge to
bear in mind the specific aim of harmonising the methodology
used in measuring their degree of pollution.

4.

International issues

4.1.
strongly recommends that the measure stipulating
dialogue with the administrations of the EU applicant countries
explicitly mention local and regional authority involvement in
the dialogue, especially with a view to cooperation and
exchange of experience in matters pertaining to urban planning
and public transport;

4.2.
regrets that the draft decision has left out the actions
set out in the communication on helping to protect the
environment of neighbouring countries;

4.3.
urges that the EU clearly set itself the external policy
priority of making world free trade agreements subject to
international environmental agreements, and making them
conditional upon an assessment of their implications for
sustainable development;

supports

the aim of

4.4.
strengthening international
environmental governance, and recommends that backing be
given to the creation of an effective World Environment
Organisation; it calls for the priority actions and measures
needed for achieving this to be specified, such as those for
strengthening the UN environmental system;

C 357/50

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

14.12.2001

4.5.
strongly agrees that it is necessary to establish targets
and measures for the World Summit on Sustainable Develop-
ment in 2002 (‘Rio+10’), and urges that regional and local
authorities be involved in achieving this aim, especially with
regard to initiatives to evaluate and implement Agenda 21 at
local level.

geographical distribution and local and regional socio-econ-
omic factors;
it therefore calls for these authorities to be
involved at an early stage in all measures designed to improve
our knowledge about the state of the environment or to
promote best practices in disseminating information on the
environment;

5. Participation and sound knowledge

welcomes the objective of pursuing a course of trans-
5.1.
parent governance and shared responsibility through more
extensive involvement of, and dialogue with, all those con-
cerned; in this context it again points to the special role that
regional and local authorities play in implementing national
and Community environmental policy and in voicing
grassroots views and passing on information to the public;

5.2.
notes the special role played by regional and local
authorities in collecting data on environmental issues, their

Brussels, 13 June 2001.

advocates support for local and regional authorities in
5.3.
the collation and exchange of
information for and with
decision-makers and the public, and in their efforts to involve
the public in these matters;

recommends

that when information systems are
5.4.
reviewed and reports submitted, consideration be given to the
evaluation of responsibilities and information flows between
municipalities, regions and Member States, so as to ensure that
reports and indicators relating to the state of the environment
in the EU are consistent, effective and reliable. In this respect,
Eurostat should develop a new green GNP,
incorporating
environmental factors and energy consumption, to be used in
conjunction with the conventional GNP to measure European
Union’s wealth.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Jos CHABERT