Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the "Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions — Environmental Agreements at Community Level Within the Framework of the Action Plan on the Simplification and Improvement of the Regulatory Environment" (COM(2002) 412 final)
Date: 2002-09-18
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EU environmental policy, action programme, drafting of EU law, environmental law, simplification of legislation

C 61/142

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

14.3.2003

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Communication from the Commission
to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee
of the Regions — Environmental Agreements at Community Level Within the Framework of the
Action Plan on the Simplification and Improvement of the Regulatory Environment’

(COM(2002) 412 final)

(2003/C 61/23)

On 18 July 2002, the Commission 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 29 August 2002. The rapporteur
was Mr Gafo Fernández.

At its 393rd Plenary Session on 18 and 19 September 2002 (meeting of 18 September) the Economic
and Social Committee adopted the following opinion with 83 votes in favour and two abstentions.

1. Commission proposal

— involvement of civil society at the drafting stage;

1.1.
This communication concerns a system for voluntary
environmental agreements at Community level. It examines
their various features and explores possibilities for recognition
by the Community institutions alongside the traditional legis-
lative process. The communication follows on from a similar
text published in 1996 on voluntary environmental agree-
level (1), which resulted in hundreds of
ments at national
voluntary agreements in countries such as the Netherlands and
Germany.

1.2.
This communication cannot be viewed in isolation. It
must be examined in conjunction with two communications
published on 5 June 2002, on simplifying and improving the
regulatory environment (2) and impact assessment (3). It is also
an integral part of action planned under the Sixth Community
Environmental Action Programme.

The communication lays down the minimum requirements
that voluntary agreements must meet to be considered as
being of Community interest (most importantly, they must tie
in with the Commission’s priorities for action) and which may
be acknowledged in some way by the Community. The criteria
concern:

— cost-effectiveness of administration;

— representativeness;

— well-defined and quantified objectives;

( 1) COM(1996) 561 final.
( 2) COM(2002) 278 final.
( 3) COM(2002) 276 final.

— the monitoring and reporting system;

— sustainability;

— compatibility with other incentives and actions.

There are two ways in which the Community insti-

1.3.
tutions may acknowledge agreements:

recommendation, or

1.3.1.
Under the self-regulation procedure, the Commission
notes the existence of the voluntary agreement by means of an
official
the simpler method of an
exchange of letters. This in no way prevents the Commission
from initiating a legislative process at a later date, particularly
if the voluntary agreement does not achieve the intended
objectives.

1.3.2.
Under the coregulation procedure a directive is used.
The most important feature of the directive is that its content
is limited to a description of the general objectives to be
attained and the requirements concerning the monitoring and
public information systems. Implementing arrangements are
the subject of a pre-existing voluntary agreement. As specified
in the communication on improving and simplifying the
regulatory environment, it would thus be used ‘where flexible
and/or urgent measures are necessary, provided that they do
not require a uniform application in the Community and that
they do not affect the conditions for competition.’

As the communication states,
the content and scope of
environmental agreements and means of monitoring and
publicising their results are not negotiated with the Com-
mission.

14.3.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 61/143

2. Comments and proposals

2.1.
The Economic and Social Committee has always been
in favour of improving legislative methods to make them less
complex, more flexible, closer to Union citizens and easier for
the public to understand. It welcomes this communication
which seeks to promote the adoption of voluntary environ-
mental agreements at Community level, and hopes that after a
short trial period it can be extended to other areas of economic
and social activity as an alternative (which may be quicker and
more flexible) to the traditional legislative process.

favour in the award of public works and supply contracts,
provided that the environmental aspect of
the voluntary
agreement is a relevant additional criterion in the award of the
contract, and subject to the final provisions of the directives
currently in the process of adoption by the Council and
European Parliament.

2.7.
Proposal 2: Environmental quality certificate. Make
participation in a voluntary environmental agreement a cri-
terion in the award of an eco-label or EMAS certification.

By definition, voluntary agreements must always go
2.2.
beyond the minimum standards required by law.
In no
circumstances must they conflict with minimum standards
adopted at national or Community level.

2.8.
Proposal 3: Relation to public procurement. Press for
the directives on the public procurement of works and services
currently in the final stages of adoption by the European
Parliament and the Council to indicate the merits of such
agreements with regard to the award of these contracts.

2.3.
Nonetheless, the Committee believes that some aspects
of this initiative could be improved to make it more accessible
and transparent, and in particular to give greater certainty in
terms of the final outcome for stakeholders proposing volun-
tary agreements. To this end, it suggests the following amend-
ments to the approach adopted in the Commission document.

2.4.
The concept of ‘stakeholders’ must be defined more
clearly. Although the Committee understands that this concept
does not apply exclusively to industry, a significant proportion
of voluntary agreements will clearly originate from the latter.
By definition, it is industry that will be the most able, in the
short term, to act at Community level, since it can guarantee
sufficient coverage and thus representativeness and, of course,
the ‘added value’ which is one of the Commission’s priorities.

2.5.
Proposal 1: Within the concept of ‘stakeholders’, make
a clear distinction between the parties which are the driving
force behind the agreement, such as industry and, where
relevant, other civil society organisations, whose role is
confined to the public information stage of voluntary agree-
ments.

2.6.
The communication makes no mention of the benefits
to stakeholders of voluntary agreements, aside from a reference
to seeking alternative methods to the traditional legislative
process. However, there are other clear advantages, such as
being seen by users, and the public in general, to adopt an
open and committed position to environmental conservation.
It may even be possible to link participation in such voluntary
agreements to award of the eco-label or EMAS certification, or
to provide for official inclusion in the annual accounts reports
of participating firms. Likewise, a firm’s participation in a
Community level voluntary agreement could count in its

2.9.
A clearer distinction must be made between the
different kinds of voluntary agreement in relation to pre-
existing legislation in the area concerned, since some voluntary
agreements seek to make new advances of a general nature.
Others are concerned with specific sectoral problems where
there is no pre-existing legislation and where the Commission
does not intend to legislate (which the Commission communi-
cation describes as grounds for not acknowledging the agree-
ment). Others still may concern areas or subjects where there
is already pre-existing legislation and where the agreement
enables it to be implemented more effectively.

2.10.
Proposal 4: Acknowledgement procedures. Articulate
the instruments for acknowledgement of voluntary agreements
as follows:

— Exchange of letters between the European Commission
and the stakeholders proposing the voluntary agreement.
Applicable to voluntary agreements where there is neither
pre-existing legislation nor an immediate interest on the
part of the Commission in introducing legislation. This
recognition would in no way affect award of the eco-
label or EMAS certification, or confer any advantage with
regard to the award of public contracts.

— Formal acknowledgement of a voluntary agreement by
the European Commission. In cases where the Com-
mission considers that all criteria have been fulfilled,
including the ability to replace planned legislation, at
least on a temporary basis. Under certain conditions,
acknowledgement of this kind could affect award of the
eco-label, EMAS certification and, possibly, could confer
an advantage with regard to the award of public contracts.

C 61/144

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

14.3.2003

— Coregulation procedure. Applicable in cases where legis-
improving its
lation already exists, as a means of
level and making it more
implementation at national
flexible, and thus as a step on from those voluntary
agreements where a formal Commission recommen-
dation has been issued and where the agreement
in
question has failed to reach the proposed objectives in a
satisfactory manner.

The Committee considers that the added value for the
2.11.
environment of any potential voluntary agreement must be
taken into account, provided that the criteria for representa-
tiveness and effective monitoring and reporting systems are
met. Likewise, the three available instruments would have to
be adapted to these situations, so as to ensure in all cases
that voluntary agreements at Community level benefit both
stakeholders and the public.

2.12.
Proposal 5: Criteria for the internal operation of
voluntary agreements. Make a fair distribution of effort and an
automatic internal penalty system for participants who commit
serious and repeated breaches of the agreement conditions for
acknowledgement of such agreements.

view of this, it seems appropriate to insist that such voluntary
agreements comply with the ‘Guidelines on the Applicability
of Article 81 of the EC Treaty to Horizontal Cooperation
Agreements.’ (1)

2.16.
Proposal 7: Relation to Community competition law.
The European Commission must insist that such agreements
respect these guidelines,
in order to ensure that they are
in compliance with Community competition law during
negotiations within sectors or specific to the agreement in
question. These guidelines would not preclude the possibility
of action by the Commission where a clear breach of
competition law has occurred.

2.17.
The procedures described in the communication,
which provide for the possibility of participation by the
European Parliament and the Council in the non-legislative
phase of a formal
recommendation, make the process
extremely complex and costly. This could have a very damag-
ing impact on cost-efficiency for partners in the voluntary
agreement, and may thwart the good intentions expressed in
the Commission communication.

2.13.
Remove the requirement for cost-effective adminis-
tration from proposed voluntary agreements on the grounds
that it is restrictive, and introduce tighter criteria on monitoring
and dissemination of results. In this way internal management
of the voluntary agreements would become automatic, with
maximum guarantees of external evaluation of fulfilment, and
the work of the Community institutions (the Commission
and, possibly, the European Environment Agency) would be
minimised.

Proposal 8: Written acknowledgement procedure.
2.18.
The public information criteria for voluntary agreements
whose sole final objective is written acknowledgement of their
existence by the Commission (through an exchange of letters)
could be confined to publication of the project in the EC’s
Official Journal and creation of a web page to allow for
suggestions on the project, which the partners could sub-
sequently incorporate if they so wish. In all other respects,
they must comply with all the same requirements as agree-
ments which are the subject of a formal recommendation
process.

Proposal 6: Criteria for approval. Support the urgent
2.14.
publication of a European Parliament and Council recommen-
dation laying down precise, detailed criteria that voluntary
agreements must meet before approval will be granted. These
should cover such aspects as the monitoring of the objectives
to be achieved, verification by a recognised independent
body and publication of results, in particular in the case of
agreements which are the subject of a formal recommendation
or coregulation. Particular emphasis should be placed on the
administrative self-sufficiency of the agreements so as to
ensure that the Community institutions are not involved in
verification.

2.15.
Compatibility between these voluntary agreements
and Community competition law must be made clearer, since
in some cases voluntary agreements may involve joint action
on technological matters, the exchange of confidential infor-
mation or even joint public information activities, which, as
the communication notes, may involve certain tax benefits. In

2.19.
Proposal 9: Formal recommendation procedure. With
regard to public information, voluntary agreements which are
the subject of a Commission recommendation must comply
with the requirements described above, but the partners must
also inform the Commission of the suggestions received and,
where relevant, their reasons for not including them in the
final draft voluntary agreement. The Commission will examine
in detail the comments received and the stance taken before it
makes the formal recommendation. This would go some way
towards compensating for the fact that the Commission is
not involved in negotiating voluntary agreements prior to
approval. The Committee does not consider it necessary for
the European Parliament and Council to be involved in
the approval process, given that acknowledgement of these
voluntary agreements has no direct legal effect.

(1) OJ C 3, 6.1.2001, p. 2.

14.3.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 61/145

2.20.
Proposal 10: Coregulation procedure. In the case
of voluntary agreements which are drawn up under the
coregulation process, with the involvement of the European
Parliament and the Council, when the proposal for a legislative
act (by definition a directive) is made, it must be made clear
which aspects are to be regulated directly by the directive and
which are the subject of a request for a voluntary agreement

between stakeholders for the purposes of implementing certain
measures designed to achieve the objectives of the directive.
Given the voluntary nature of the agreements, additional
measures would be needed for those individual cases where
the parties concerned directly by the directive do not wish
to participate in a voluntary agreement at Community
level.

Brussels, 18 September 2002.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Göke FRERICHS

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Lisbon — Renewing the Vision?’

(2003/C 61/24)

At its plenary session on 16 January 2002, the Economic and Social Committee, acting under the third
paragraph of Rule 23 of its Rules of Procedure, decided to draw up an own-initiative opinion on the
‘Lisbon — Renewing the vision?’

In accordance with Rules 11(4) and 19(1) of its Rules of Procedure the Committee set up a sub-committee
to prepare its work on this above-mentioned subject.

The sub-committee adopted its draft opinion on 29 July 2002. The rapporteur was Mr Morgan.

At its 393rd Plenary Session (meeting of 18 September 2002) the Economic and Social Committee
adopted the following opinion by 86 votes in favour with one abstention.

1.

Introduction

1.1.
High hopes were raised by the Portuguese Presidency
during the preparation for the Lisbon European Council held
in March 2000. In its Opinion prepared for Lisbon (1) the EESC
shared the optimism associated with the event and offered its
own agenda.

1.2.
In the process of preparation for the Barcelona Euro-
pean Council held in March 2002, it was clear that although
everyone accepted that the Lisbon targets were very ambitious,
many observers and many participants felt that insufficient
progress was being achieved against the Lisbon agenda.

The EESC decided to wait

1.3.
the
Barcelona Council before giving its opinion on progress, and
its view of the priorities going forward.

for the report of

2. The Vision

2.1.
The Vision for the Lisbon Council meeting was elo-
quently expressed by the Portuguese Presidency in a letter
dated 17 January 2000 addressed to the members of the
European Council. The following is an extract from Prime
Minister Guterres’ letter:

( 1) OJ C 117, 26.4.2000, p. 62.

‘A new period is beginning in European construction.