WRITTEN QUESTION E-2225/03 by Torben Lund (PSE) to the Commission. Financing of eco-label scheme.
Date: 2003-07-02
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU environmental policy, eco-label, environmental tax, financing method, public awareness campaign

26.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51 E/225

impact (geographical area and size of affected population) as well as the environmental sensitivity of areas
likely to be affected and in particular special protection areas designated by Member States pursuant to the
Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 (2) on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna
and flora (the ‘Habitats Directive’). In the case where the Member State decide that the project will have
significant effects on the environment an environmental impact assessment has to be carried out.

The project is situated in the direct neighbourhood of the ‘Ring of historical forts around Antwerp as an
habitat for bats’. This site was proposed as a Site of Community Importance according to Article 4,
paragraph 1 of the Habitats Directive. Increased air and ground traffic, as well as the construction of a new
road in the direct neighbourhood of that site might possibly have negative effects on the conservation
status of the site and on the two bats species for which the site was proposed.

The Commission intends to ask the Belgian authorities to provide it with detailed information about the
proposed works at Deurne airport in order to enable it to determine whether the authorities have
complied with the EIA and Habitats Directives.

The Honourable member asks if Belgium can invoke Article 2(3) of the EIA Directive in this particular
case. The EIA Directive provides that Member States, may, in exceptional cases, exempt a specific project
in whole or in part from the provisions of the EIA Directive.

In such a case the following obligations have to be fulfilled:

(a)

consider whether another form of assessment would be appropriate and whether the information thus
collected should be made available to the public,

(b) make available to the public concerned the information relating to the exemption and the reasons for

granting it, and

(c)

inform the Commission, prior to granting consent, of the reasons for justifying the exemption granted,
and provide it with the information made available, where applicable, to their own nationals.

The Commission therefore, cannot pronounce itself in this respect, as Belgium has not informed the
Commission of any intention to apply this exemption. On the basis of information already provided
Article 2(3) of the Directive has been invoked seven times by Member States. None of these cases involved
Belgium.

Directive 2001/42/EC (3) applies to certain plans and programmes. It is not clear whether the proposal
referred to by the Honourable Member could be classed as a plan or programme as defined by the
Directive. In any case, the obligation referred to in Article 4(1) of that Directive applies (with limited
exceptions) only in the case of plans or programmes of which the first preparatory act is subsequent to
21 July 2004.

(1) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.
(2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
(3) Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the

effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment, OJ L 197, 21.7.2001.

(2004/C 51 E/245)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2225/03

by Torben Lund (PSE) to the Commission

(2 July 2003)

Subject: Financing of eco-label scheme

The EU’s eco-labelling scheme (cid:1) in common with several national schemes (cid:1) is in many cases a success.
However, the EU scheme could be more widespread and, apparently, the financing model might possibly
be better designed.

C 51 E/226

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

26.2.2004

The fee or company contribution for the award and use of the EU eco-label is low, which is an incentive
for businesses to try to take part in the scheme. However, in some cases, the firm’s contribution does not
cover the actual costs involved in the scheme. The EU scheme requires public schemes in the Member
States to offer individual case management and other services, which may mean that some countries give
lower priority to this work and therefore do not promote the interests of the environment, consumers or
business.

Can the Commission therefore say whether analyses of alternative models of financing the eco-labelling
scheme are envisaged or have been carried out, including higher business contributions, EU assistance for
Member States’ administration of the scheme or other initiatives which may encourage the Member States
to promote the scheme? What is the Commission’s assessment of developments in general in this area and
what initiatives are expected to be taken in the future?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(4 August 2003)

The different stakeholders involved in promoting the eco-label (Member States, Commission, competent
bodies and interest groups) place considerable emphasis on marketing and promotion and have set up a
marketing management group to co-ordinate promotion activities. An awareness raising campaign planned
for 2004 will contribute to the visibility of the scheme.

As already mentioned in the answer to the Honourable Member’s Written Question E-2241/02 (1), views
differ on the question of fees. The Commission had carried out a consultation with stakeholders in
preparing the recent revision of the Decision establishing the Eco-label fees and proposed a structure
consisting of an application and an annual fee. Test and verification costs are not included in those fees.
The Commission does not intend to further revise this fee structure.

However, the Commission has started general discussions about the revision of the scheme within the
policy group of the European Union Eco-labelling Board to further improve the instrument and the
involvement of Member States. As this work is in its initial stage no decisions have been taken so far. The
work of the policy group can be followed at the web site address: http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/
ecolabel/background/pm_managementgroups.htm#policy

(1) OJ C 309 E, 12.12.2002.

(2004/C 51 E/246)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2230/03

by Ole Sørensen (ELDR) to the Commission

(30 June 2003)

Subject: Approval of multi-purpose utility vehicle in Denmark

HWH, a company in the town of Hadsund, has had its application for approval of a new ‘LADOG’ multi-
purpose utility vehicle rejected by the Danish Road Safety and Transport Agency. The vehicle is made in
Germany and is a multi-purpose utility vehicle specially designed for the local government sector.

The Commissioner of Police granted road contractors acting on behalf of Århus County a three-month
exemption running from 11 November 2002 to use a similar vehicle.