Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the "Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on pan-European environmental cooperation after the 2003 Kiev conference" (COM(2003) 62 final)
Date: 2003-07-16
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: European cooperation, environmental policy, environmental protection, sustainable development

C 234/30

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.9.2003

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Communication from the
Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on pan-European environmental
cooperation after the 2003 Kiev conference’

(COM(2003) 62 final)

(2003/C 234/09)

On 6 February 2003 the Commission decided to consult the European 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 27 June 2003. The rapporteur
was Mr Ribbe.

At its 401st Plenary Session of 16 and 17 July 2003 (meeting of 16 July), the Committee adopted the
following opinion by 119 votes to one, with one abstention.

1. Content of the Commission communication

The Commission presents its ideas for pan-European
1.1.
environmental cooperation in the wake of the fifth conference
of European environment ministers in Kiev on 21 to 23 May
2003, and describes the main challenges facing Europe today
in the field of environmental protection, especially with regard
to the countries to the east and south-east of the EU’s current
external frontiers. The sweeping political changes in recent
years have paved the way for the joint discussion of measures
to reduce environmental damage.

1.2.
The first conference of European environment minis-
ters was held in Dobris in 1991. The aim at that time was to
create a framework for joint action and to support the new
democratic societies in their endeavours to provide more
environmental protection and sustainable development. In
addition, however,
the conference also established the
‘Environment for Europe’ process, and the continuation of this
process was discussed in Kiev.

1.3.
The Commission praises the cooperation to date and a
series of concrete results and developments which have led in
part to appreciable reductions in environmental damage. On
the other hand, however, it also makes it clear that a great deal
must still be done. It talks about the serious neglect of the
environment in some countries and points to the adverse
effects on the health of those countries’ populations, and
especially their children. The Commission states that it is
necessary to develop and implement more efficient environ-
mental strategies as a matter of urgency.

1.4.
According to the Commission, the aim of the phase in
the ‘Environment for Europe’ process now being addressed is
— in a nutshell — to bring the relevant countries’ environmen-
tal
laws into line with EU standards and to implement
the sustainable development objectives laid down at the

Johannesburg summit. This is to be achieved by implementing
international agreements and also with the aid of actions and
investments. EU funding is also to be used for this purpose in
order to implement concrete projects and carry the political
decision-making processes forward.

1.5.
Civil society and, in particular, environmental NGOs
are mentioned as a part of this process, but no vital role is
assigned to them.

The Commission divides the countries in question into
1.6.
four distinct groups, depending on the closeness of their
political ties with the EU:

— the 10 accession countries and the three further candidate

countries (Bulgaria, Romania, Turkey),

— the five Western Balkan countries,

— the Western NIS and the Caucasus, and

— the NIS countries of Central Asia, which participate
in pan-European cooperation as members of the UN
European region and the Organisation for Security and
Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).

2. General comments

Because of

2.1.
time between the
the short space of
publication of the Commission communication, the Council
of Ministers’ discussion on the matter (with resolution) and the
conference itself the EESC refrained from adopting an opinion
prior to the Kiev conference. Instead it would like to assess in
this opinion not only the communication but also the
conference proceedings and outcome.

30.9.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 234/31

The ‘Environment for Europe’ process and the Kiev conference

It was in Dobris back in 1991 that ‘Environment for
2.2.
Europe’ was chosen as the name for the process described
in the Commission communication. This name gives the
impression that the process still involves an overall strategy
for environmental protection and sustainable development in
the whole of Europe. However, this is not the case (any longer),
even though ideas to that effect were expressed at the time in
Dobris.

The EESC underlines the importance thus far of the
2.3.
‘Environment
for Europe’ process for the development of
environmental policy within the EU, too. One of the positive
effects of this process is,
for example, the 1998 Åarhus
Convention which triggered an important step towards the
involvement of society in environmental policymaking.

2.4.
The efforts to date of the Commission and all the
countries involved in the ‘Environment for Europe’ process are
welcomed by the Committee. This commitment emphasises
the importance of environmental protection and sustainable
development for the future of Europe. The high attendance at
the Kiev conference (about 4 000 participants) is indicative of
the great importance attached to environmental protection
and sustainable development in society.

In the EESC’s view, one particularly positive sign to
2.5.
emerge from the conference — apart from the agreements (1)
concluded — was that ministers held extensive talks with NGO
representatives.

2.6.
However, the Committee would criticise the fact that
no detailed assessment was presented either in the run-up to
the conference or at the conference itself indicating which
elements in the ‘Environment for Europe’ process have been
particularly effective so far and where particular difficulties
have arisen. Given the continuing drastic state of the environ-
ment
‘Europe’s Environment: the third
assessment’ presented at the Kiev conference by the European
Environment Agency), such an assessment would certainly be
appropriate after 12 years of the ‘Environment for Europe’
process and also helpful
‘more efficient environmental
strategies’ (cf. point 1.3) really are to be developed as required.

in some areas (cf.

if

The new challenge in the field of environmental protection to the east
and south-east of the EU’s current external frontiers

2.7.
The communication and the document issued at the
end of the Kiev conference make it clear that the main concern
now within the process is to protect the environment in the
east and south-east European countries in question. Even if the
initial situations and opportunities for making progress in the

( 1) Protocols on strategic environmental assessment, pollutant release
and transfer registers and civil
liability and compensation of
damages caused by transboundary effects of industrial accidents.

regions in question are extremely disparate, the main aim
everywhere — according to the conference participants — is
to bring environmental standards into line with EU standards.
This objective is expressly welcomed and supported by the
EESC, for the comprehensive adoption and application of
environmental law would undoubtedly bring about important
reductions in environmental damage.

too frequent

2.8.
However, it is also necessary not to overlook the fact
that the EU itself has made it clear in many documents that it
the all
is not because of
infringements of
EU environmental
legislation that there are environmental
problems in Europe. The vast majority of the activities which
cause undue damage to the environment are within the law (in
Europe), i.e. more far-reaching initiatives in and beyond the
EU are an absolute necessity. The EESC has already pointed
this out on several occasions. However, this also means that
the EU standards to be applied in the countries in question can
therefore only be regarded as an intermediate step on the road
towards sustainability. The laws must be tightened up further,
and both businesses and private individuals must give the
utmost consideration in the way they behave to environmental
protection and sustainable development.

2.9.
The Commission communication divides up the
countries to which the future process is to apply into four
this
regions (cf. point 1.6). The Committee thinks that
breakdown makes sense, for both the initial situations and
opportunities for future action in these countries differ enor-
mously. For example, the accession countries — unlike the
other regions — will be adopting the EU’s environmental
provisions and will also be able to profit from Structural Fund,
Cohesion Fund and rural development monies.

The role of civil society

2.10.
The EESC praises the efforts made so far to solve the
environmental problems in some of the countries in question,
but agrees with the Commission that awareness of the need
for more environmental protection and the political will to do
more can and must be strengthened considerably.

The vast proportion of the money to be invested on
2.11.
environmental protection and sustainable development in the
future will have to come from the budgets of the countries
themselves or from businesses and private individuals. Only if
there is a high sense of environmental awareness will poli-
ticians be ready to make the funds available. This will require
the development of a society which regards environmental
protection and sustainable development as offering the pros-
pect of a better society and not as rivals for the funds to be
for
spent on the expansion of general
example, the health, educational or social sectors. There is an
urgent need to work on the creation of such an awareness.

infrastructure or,

C 234/32

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.9.2003

2.12.
Organised civil society plays a very decisive role here.
The EESC has stressed on several occasions that environmental
protection and sustainable development cannot be imposed
from above and that a bottom-up approach must be sought
and found. The Commission refers in part to civil society in its
communication, which, for example, describes the important
role played by the Regional Environment Centres (RECs) that
it co-finances.

2.13.
Despite all the high regard for the work of the RECs,
however, one criticism which must be made is that a properly
functioning environmental network system has not yet been
built in the individual countries. The many groups which exist
there are frequently very poorly organised nationally so that in
many cases they play only a secondary role in political
decision-making.

2.14.
In this context it is necessary to discuss the role to be
played by the RECs in supporting the creation of integrated
and not only decentralised structures, the involvement of
organised civil society in the ‘Environment for Europe’ process,
and the strengthening of environmental NGOs.

2.15.
The EESC thinks that one important concern should
be to involve business associations and trade union organis-
ations more closely in this process. Environmental main-
streaming must permeate all sections of society and start at a
very young age. Only if education and training include
environmental issues will it be possible to push through the
aforementioned bottom-up approach. In the EESC’s opinion,
the ‘Environment for Europe’ process has not taken account of
this aspect, and has not progressed far enough in the desired
direction.

3. Specific comments

The EESC notes the outcome of the Kiev conference,
3.1.
including the final declaration. It underlines the point made in
the declaration that foreseeable developments could create
many new problems. However, neither the Commission
communication nor the Kiev conference’s final declaration
describes clearly how new environmental problems, which are

Brussels, 16 July 2003.

hardly known or unknown at present but which are wholly
predictable, can be avoided in future in the countries in
question.

3.2.
One example which the EESC would point to and was
also mentioned by the environment ministers is the growth in
in those
traffic especially on the roads already evident
countries, and in particular in the countries with high econ-
omic growth and noticeable rises in living standards. A further
example is the intensification of agricultural production. The
export of old technology (such as motor vehicles with no or
little exhaust-gas pollution control) or the transfer of old
processes from the EU to these countries exacerbates the
problem in part.

The EESC would therefore welcome it if future Com-
3.3.
mission documents — after taking a detailed description of
the problems as their starting point — were to give a much
clearer description of the strategies for remedying the resultant
damage. In this respect the EESC regards both the Commission
paper and the final declaration as being too general and
imprecise. The aim is not only to clear up the environmental
disasters inherited from the old regimes but also to provide
sustainable development for the future, for which significant
progress still has to be made in the present EU Member States,
the failure of the Commission
too. Seen in these terms,
document and the Kiev conference’s final declaration to
commit themselves leaves a nasty aftertaste.

The EESC would like to recommend to the Commission
3.4.
and the UNECE as the co-hosts of the Kiev conference that
they carry out a separate assessment on the successes and
failures to date and the resultant strategy for integrating civil
society into the ‘Environment for Europe’ process.

3.5.
The EESC thinks that the role to be played by civil
society within the ‘Environment for Europe’ process is still not
adequately recognised. Especially in countries still lagging a
long way behind in terms of prosperity, it will not be possible
to establish sustainable development unless all groups give
their support or even demand the appropriate initiatives from
their governments. Notwithstanding its high regard for the
RECs’ serious and devoted work, the EESC doubts whether the
establishment and promotion of such centres is enough.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Roger BRIESCH