Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Impact of European environmental rules on industrial change
Date: 2007-12-12
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EU programme, environmental impact, environmental law, environmental policy, environmental protection, environmental standard, fund (EU), industrial restructuring, sustainable development

16.5.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 120/57

5.4 With regard to the two previous points, should we not
be aiming for a single system to be gradually applied to all
taxpayers within the same Member State?

If

5.5
the CCCTB system is to bring more transparency,
should the declaratory common base be entrusted to a transna-
tional body?

5.6 With the CCCTB system, tax differences hidden in the
calculation of tax bases will be reflected in the rates within the
Member States that have opted for
the
common tax base system not result in a greater dispersion of
tax rates (at least nominal rates)? There is a risk of renewed
competition over published tax rates. A Commission study

the CCCTB. Will

(2001) noted that
primary cause of tax-competition-related economic distortion!

the dispersion of nominal rates was the

If tax rate differentials were to remain (contrary to the
5.7
recent
trend towards convergence) — or even increase —
between the Member States that opt for the CCCTB, could we
envisage the introduction of a minimum rate for these Member
States? This rate could be set just below that adopted by the
new Member States,
for example. The situation will remain
unchanged for these countries with regard to the import of
foreign capital. The other Member States could adopt a higher
tax rate without fear of overly aggressive external fiscal policies
affecting their economic capital.

Brussels, 13 December 2007.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Dimitris DIMITRIADIS

Opinion of

the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Impact of European

environmental rules on industrial change’

(2008/C 120/15)

On 16 February 2007 the European Economic and Social Committee, acting under Rule 29(2) of its Rules
of Procedure, decided to draw up an opinion on the

Impact of European environmental rules on industrial change.

The Consultative Commission on Industrial Change, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's
work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 13 November 2007. The rapporteur was Mr Pezzini and the
co-rapporteur was Mr Nowicki.

At its 440th plenary session, held on 12-13 December (meeting of 12 December), the European Economic
and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 137 votes to 1 with 1 abstention.

1. Conclusions and recommendations

facing

public

Environmental policy is currently one of the main social
1.1
challenges
economic
decision-makers. The slow global response to environmental
problems can no longer be an excuse for putting off the legisla-
tive and behavioural changes needed to achieve the EU's funda-
mental objective, i.e. to achieve sustainable development.

authorities

and

1.3
The Committee believes that all economic and social
operators — whether public or private — and politicians and
public authorities must be fully aware of the fact that we are
facing a new industrial revolution that places quality of life and
of the environment at the heart of development and requires a
new, integrated approach to planning, production and consump-
tion, and to conserving and managing natural resources.

European industry has great potential

1.2
to become a
sustainable economy, but its success will increasingly depend on
its ability to innovate in the area of industrial change. This
change is necessary as a result of opening up markets, and
globalisation and technological and behavioural changes, which
are accelerated by a growing acceptance of the need to protect
the environment and natural resources.

1.4
The Committee believes there is an urgent need to move
on from a defensive, knee-jerk approach to one that is decisive
and proactive, preparing the future by launching at EU- and
Member State level a clear, stable framework of positive actions
on a sustainable basis to speed up:

— the development and application of clean product and

process technologies;

C 120/58

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

16.5.2008

— the promotion of a genuine entrepreneurial spirit that is

alive to eco-friendly manufacturing issues;

— training for skilled technicians.

it

The EESC believes

1.5
this new
pro-active approach should be based on prevention rather than
on corrective work after the event, and on uniform procedures
for all players as part of a European environmental code that is
useful for the legislator, operators and consumers.

important

that

is

1.6
The Committee is convinced that technological develop-
ment and innovation must primarily be the responsibility of the
entrepreneur and public authorities: however, both entrepre-
neurs and the authorities must be motivated, encouraged and
supported by appropriate European, national and local policies,
and by public-private partnerships that simplify and free up
resources; this is essential to meeting the challenges.

The Committee believes it is essential that, at EU level,
1.7
new and sustainable industrial initiatives be incorporated into
the Structural Funds, Community innovation,
research and
training programmes, and relevant financial instruments.

1.8
The Committee would remind the Commission and the
Member States of the need to speed up adoption of concrete
simplification measures
to eliminate unnecessary
in order
burdens and to reduce the increasing costs resulting from the
bureaucratic and technical burdens imposed by current environ-
mental
legislation; the latter will have to be streamlined and
consolidated for consistency.

levels,

Close coordination is needed, along with a range of
1.8.1
policies and instruments at various
in addition to
securing the clearest possible environmental policy that is user-
friendly and does not entail additional costs, especially for SMEs.
‘Less but better lawmaking’ must translate into consolidated,
consistent regulatory texts in the field of
the environment,
providing legal certainty and transparency for adjusting to
industrial change, and focusing on how best to protect resources
and the environment and apply sustainable, competitive techno-
logical innovations in the global marketplace. SMEs must have
the capacity to be able to absorb the compliance costs without
undermining their competitive advantage.

The Committee would stress the importance of rapidly
1.9
adopting an integrated long-term Community strategy to
provide certainty for public and private decision makers and
make it possible to cope with the technological and organisa-
tional changes needed to comply with high standards of envir-
onmental protection.

on the Lisbon process, along with the results of ex-post assess-
ments of their legislative and financial activities. The available
data should specify better the environmental aspect, which
should become an integral part of the Commission's summary
report,
to be presented annually to the Spring European
Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and
Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions.

1.12
The Committee believes it is important that national
policies should highlight the positive impacts of the various
economic instruments and fiscal incentives on the environment.
This is particularly the case for taxation — where it is hoped EU
solutions can be found (1) — and which impacts on:

— production and employment;

— use of natural resources;

— environmental pollution levels;

— choosing high levels of environmental protection;

— environmental

technology

innovation

for

processes,

products and organisation.

1.13
There is a need to move more quickly to define quanti-
fiable, shared objectives in order to act on the ambitious deci-
sions taken by the Spring European Council and the subsequent
Environment Council.

The Committee reaffirms the vital role that the social
1.14
partners and organised civil society representatives must play at
various levels — starting with the European level — in inter-
sectoral and sectoral discussions to address problems relating to
these have a
competitiveness, energy and the environment;
significant impact on many industries as they require important
structural changes — particularly in manufacturing — and call
for a closely coordinated, integrated approach, backed up by a
constant drive towards simplification and an attack on red tape.

1.15
The Committee believes that problems relating to the
environment, the sustainable use of natural resources and the
creation of new eco-friendly market opportunities and new and
better jobs that are eco-aware must be accompanied by a busi-
ness-friendly, employee-friendly environment that is capable of
innovation and the
supporting the
capacity
economic,
are
constantly called upon to make in order to keep abreast of
market competition.

and training efforts

cultural

latter's

social,

they

for

1.10
The Stability and Growth Pact might need to be modi-
fied to better reflect the Lisbon Strategy and Gothenburg objec-
tives on environmental sustainability in order to encourage —
clearly and transparently and without distorting competition —
the long-term public investment
is needed, and which
should be excluded from the definition of ‘public deficit’.

that

1.16
As the EESC and leading figures from the Commission,
the Council and the European Parliament have often said, it is
essential to reduce the administrative and bureaucratic burden
on firms in order to unleash their economic and social energy
and to refocus it on the sustainable modernisation of
the
productive and organisational environment and structures.

1.11
their
The Member States should include details of
annual environmental investment plans in their annual reports

(1) Cf. Eurovignette system — Directive 2006/38/EC amending Directive
1999/62/EC on the charging of heavy goods vehicle for the use of
certain infrastructure.

16.5.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 120/59

An integrated, proactive enterprise policy is required,
1.17
one capable of combining a commitment
to environmental
protection with enhanced competitiveness, and of safeguarding
quality of life and employment, boosting employment levels and
providing knowledgeable, skilled human resources: the RTD,
Innovation and Competitiveness and Life Plus programmes must
be strengthened by making them more accessible, and they
must be compatible with structural and regional cohesion
instruments.

1.18
Community efforts to develop the information society
must aim, in their education and training programmes, to inte-
issues, starting with primary school and
grate environmental
encompassing professional, managerial and scientific training.

Social, economic and environmental

issues must be
1.19
considered consistently in terms of their domestic and interna-
tional
implications, so that firms can compete on an equal
footing in the global market and that sustainable development
can take account of the new greater interdependence that has
emerged between countries and major continental economic
areas.

1.20
Europe must be able to speak with one voice in bilateral
and multilateral arenas in order to ensure that WTO and bilat-
eral agreements contain a social dimension that is also flanked
by a strong environmental protection dimension

2. Introduction

2.4
A properly designed environmental policy that takes due
account of the need for adjustment periods and is inspired by
the principles of better regulation and simplified legislation and
bureaucracy can make a positive contribution towards competi-
tiveness, growth and employment by actively promoting eco-in-
novation and efficient resources. Any legal tinkering that makes
endless changes to current legislation should be avoided.

2.5
The Council has asked the Commission to present in the
near future a green paper on market-based instruments for
environmental management. The green paper will need to
suggest new cost-effective environmental policy instruments to
be used in conjunction with Member State regulation and finan-
cial incentives. These measures should avoid producing unfair
distortions; they should also aim to achieve environmental effi-
ciency in each individual production sector, ensuring local solu-
tions can be applied to local problems.

As the Committee has emphasised,

2.5.1
‘… in order for a
sustainable development strategy to have any real driving force
or traction it needs to be carried through into specific measur-
able objectives and targets, based on rigorous analysis’. The
Council's review of
the EU Sustainable Development Strategy
‘contains a large number of objectives and actions. But it does
not relate these to any quantified analysis of data and trends or
to any qualitative analysis of issues and problems’ (2).

2.6
It is therefore essential that the CCMI should discuss the
broad theme of the impact of European environmental rules on
industrial change, taking account of the experience that the
EESC and the CCMI have acquired in preparing various opinions
on the subject.

2.1
The Brussels European Council of 8 and 9 March 2007
focused particularly on the environment and climate change,
and set specific objectives.

2.1.1
The declared objective is to cut CO2 emissions by 20 %
to 30 % by 2020 and by 60 % to 80 % by 2050, compared to
1990 levels.

2.7
The Competitiveness Council of 4 December 2006
emphasised the need to promote eco-innovation (particularly in
industry), competitiveness and R&D, exploiting to the full the
potential of lead markets in sectors such as:

— safe, sustainable, low environmental-impact technologies;

2.2
The Commission's 2007 annual progress report on the
Lisbon Strategy for growth and employment focused on climate
change, eco-innovation, energy efficiency,
renewable energy
sources and energy markets.

— eco-product design;

— renewable energy sources;

The report stressed that committed action in these
2.2.1
to environmental
fields would lead to effective solutions
problems, sustainable use of natural resources and to the crea-
tion of new market opportunities and new jobs.

— energy efficiency and preservation of natural resources;

— water supply services.

To these should also be added efficient use of materials (3).

The Environment Council of 20 February 2007 stressed
2.3
that the EU's renewed sustainable development strategy and the
Lisbon Strategy for growth and employment are complementary
and that the Lisbon Strategy makes a vital contribution to the
key objective of sustainable development. It also restated the
improving environmental protection, which
importance of
should be seen as one of the three key pillars of sustainable
development, and the need to mainstream environmental issues
into all policies.

2.7.1
The aim is to put Europe at the forefront of eco-inno-
vation and make it the most efficient place in the world in
terms of energy use.

(2) Cf. Exploratory opinion NAT/348 — OJ C 168, 20.7.2007 — rappor-

teur: Mr Ribbe.

(3) EESC opinion on Sustainable development as a driving force for indus-

trial change, CCMI/029 — OJ C 318, 23.12.2006.

C 120/60

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

16.5.2008

2.8
The CCMI has, in recent times, considered in depth the
effects of action to contain demand in two opinions adopted by
the European Economic and Social Committee on 25 September
2003 and 14 September 2006 (4):
‘Industrial change: current
situation and prospects — An overall approach’; and ‘Sustain-
able development as a driving force for industrial change’. The
main aim was to study the dynamics of ‘a development that
meets the needs of today without endangering the supply of the
needs of future generations’ (5).

the environment throughout the life cycle of the product is a
wide-ranging objective in an increasingly globalised market. It is
the subject of specific European regulation and is included in
the priorities of the EU's 6th Environmental Action Programme
(2002-2012) which provides for the development and imple-
mentation of seven thematic strategies (8), on which the EESC
has already expressed its views, and which concern — both in
general and in specific terms — the productive and distributive
system.

2.9
This own-initiative opinion, however, aims to look more
closely at the issue from the supply side in terms of environ-
mentally-sustainable production, and to analyse European envir-
onmental provisions that have enormous bearing on distribu-
tion and production operations, with an increasing impact on
products, processes and supply of services.

2.10
Once the operational impact of the Integrated Product
Policy (IPP) has been assessed, it will become an essential part of
the Community's sustainable development strategy. All products
have an impact on the environment, either during production,
use or final disposal. The same is true of services. Furthermore,
the EU is trying to encourage economic operators and civil
involved in environmental protection
society players to get
through measures such as the eco-label,
the Community's
Eco-management and audit scheme, or through voluntary agree-
ments.

Effective environmental protection requires an accurate
2.11
assessment of the impact of human decisions and actions on
the environment. The repercussions for the environment can
thus be examined both upstream, using the environmental
impact assessment system for public and private projects, and
in the Member
downstream,
States, involving all stakeholders.

through environmental control

2.11.1
industrial policy and to sustainable consumption.

The same attention should be paid to sustainable

2.12 Moreover, damage to protected natural areas,
the
aquatic environment and soil contamination are now subject to
sanctions. The ‘polluter-pays’ principle became a reality with the
adoption in 2004 of
liability directive,
according to which those who are responsible for environmental
damage can be required to pay for remedial work. Moreover,
there are European regulations covering waste management,
packaging, noise, water, and atmospheric pollution, climate
change, natural and technological risks, and on accidents invol-
ving certain dangerous substances (6).

the environmental

2.13
The systematic incorporation of environmental require-
ments in product design (7) to reduce the negative impact on

(4) CCMI/002 and CCMI/029 — OJ C 318, 23.12.2006.
(5) CCMI/029 — OJ C 318, 23.12.2006, paragraph B.
(6) Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of
major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances (Severo II
Directive).

(7) Directive 2005/32/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 6 July 2005 establishing a framework for the setting of ecodesign
requirements for energy-using products and amending Council Direc-
tive 92/42/EEC and Directives 96/57/EC and 2000/55/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council.

and production and distribution processes,

2.14
The CCMI fully endorses the aim to take on board
environmental requirements in the initial planning stages for
products
if
performed as an integral part of the Lisbon Strategy, in order to
return competitiveness to a European industry that is changing,
not just in terms of sustainable, cohesive development, but also
in terms of simplification and streamlining technical and admin-
istrative burdens for firms, particularly smaller ones.

2.15
A coherent framework of measures to integrate ecolo-
gical requirements into the design, development, distribution
and disposal stages of all energy-consuming products covers
over 70 % of products currently circulating freely in the single
market (9). The framework is not limited to energy performance
but covers all types of environmental impact (solid, gas, noise
and electromagnetic emissions, etc.).

However,

2.16
the production and distribution system is
affected by a wide range of environmental impact regulations
which radically transform the way products are manufactured
and services are supplied in the European Union. This body of
legislation needs transparency, simplification and consolidation.
Indeed,
the Community's environmental policy commitment
cuts across all other policy measures, whether it be those invol-
ving technical standardisation, regulation of chemical substances
under
those
the REACH regulation, employment policy or
relating to the single market and exchange of goods and
services.

Policy implementation must take account of collateral
2.17
the main objec-
impact, which often reduces the scope of
tives (10) but has serious unintended consequences for
the
economy unless a comprehensive assessment is carried out as
part of an integrated framework (11).

(8) The thematic strategies are:

— air pollution;
— marine environment;
— sustainable use of natural resources;
— waste prevention and recycling;
— soil protection;
— use of pesticides;
— urban environment.

(9) Cf. Directive 2005/32.
(10) Cf. TEN/274,
Mr Zboril.

rapporteur: Mr

Iozia, and TEN/287,

rapporteur:

(11) Cf. Opinion TEN/286 on Progress in the use of biofuels, rapporteur:

Mr Iozia.

16.5.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 120/61

3. The current framework of Community environmental

measures

facing

public

Environmental policy is currently one of the main social
3.1
challenges
economic
decision-makers. The slow global response to environmental
problems can no longer be an excuse for putting off the legisla-
tive and behavioural changes needed to achieve the EU's funda-
mental objective, i.e. to achieve sustainable development, which
is global challenge facing our partners throughout the world.

authorities

and

3.2
Sustainable development must lead, in the Committee's
view (12), to a more prosperous, fairer European society that
guarantees a cleaner, safer, healthier environment, and that
provides a better quality of life and work for us, our children
and our grandchildren. This, however, will
require greater
consistency between EU policies and instruments, in order to
than bureaucratic approach that
ensure a proactive rather
respects the economic and social dimensions of
industrial
change and enhances the ability of firms to compete efficiently
in a global context.

Scientific and technological progress is essential to recon-
3.3
cile economic growth with social and environmental sustain-
ability, as the Committee has emphasised: ‘Top performances in
the scientific and technical field, and their conversion into a
competitive, economic force, are essential preconditions to safe-
guarding our future, for example with regard to energy and
climate issues, preserving and improving our current global
position, and developing rather than jeopardising the European
social model’ (13).

3.4
In the 7th Framework Programme of the European Com-
munity for research, technological development and demonstra-
tion activities (2007-2013), the priority given to the environ-
ment is clear. In this context, the EESC has highlighted that
‘environmental protection is of fundamental importance for the
quality and very foundations of life of both present and future
generations. Recognising and resolving the problems involved
— be the causes man-made or natural — is a particularly ambi-
tious and potentially vital goal. This task is closely linked with
the most diverse research and policy fields: economy, energy,
health and agriculture, including monitoring tasks and, in view
of the global aspects, international agreements’ (14).

European Technology Platforms (15) provide an impor-
3.4.1
tant instrument for unblocking Europe's innovation potential, as
does
the Environmental Technologies Action Plan, which
addresses lead markets.

(12) OJ C 117, 30.4.2004 on the Sustainable Development Strategy.
(13) OJ C 325, 30.12.2006 on Unlocking and strengthening Europe's
for research, development and innovation, rapporteur:

potential
Mr Wolf (exploratory opinion).

(14) OJ C 185, 8.8.2006 on specific programmes of
2007-2013, rapporteurs: Mr Wolf and Mr Pezzini.

the 7th FP

(15) European Technology Platforms (ETP) are informal private organisa-
tions that unite all important (stakeholders) around a common vision
and approach for the development of technologies in a particular field
or in certain areas, focusing on strategic issues where the EU's future
growth, competitiveness and sustainability depend on major technolo-
gical progress. At the beginning of 2007 there were 31 ETPs. —
Cf. Third Report on European Technology Platforms at the launch of
FP7, European Commission, March 2007.

role in European economic activity provided that

The manufacturing sector will continue to play a signif-
3.4.2
icant
it
develops with a constant eye on the new parameters for quality
life and the environment and on healthy management of
of
resources in terms of:

— new business models;

— products and services with high added value;

— hi-tech industrial engineering, using advanced eco-tech-

nology processes;

— emerging productive technologies and sciences, in order to

establish ecology and technology standards;

— updating RTD models and training infrastructures by incor-

porating the new environmental parameters;

— developing green procurement;

— new forms of financing for environmental technologies, as

provided for under the Action Plan (16);

— better application of research and technical standards.

The priority objectives of

3.5
the 2007-2013 cohesion
policy instruments devote ample space to sustainable develop-
ment and aim to encourage synergies between the social and
dimensions, with
environmental
of
a
EUR 308 billion:
‘Environmental protection needs to be taken
into account in preparing programmes and projects with a view
to promoting sustainable development’ (17).

budget

total

3.5.1
The ERDF supports programmes pertaining to regional
development, economic change, and strengthening competitive-
ness and regional cooperation throughout the EU. Its funding
objectives include environmental protection, research and risk
prevention in this important sector, particularly in lagging
regions.

The cohesion fund helps to promote intervention in
3.5.2
the environment and trans-European transport networks. It is
currently available for Member States with a gross national
income (GNI) less than 90 % of the Community average (18),
although funding is scarce for railway infrastructure compared
to road transport, with worrying repercussions for the environ-
ment and quality of life.

Cohesion expenditure is to be refocused on common
3.5.3
themes,
including research and technological development,
innovation and entrepreneurship, the information society, trans-
port, energy — including renewable energy sources, environ-
mental protection and issues linked with human resources and
labour market policy.

(16) Cf. COM(2004) 38 final: Stimulating Technologies for Sustainable
Development: An Environmental Technologies Action Plan for the
European Union.

(17) Decision 2006/702/EC: Decision of the Council of 6 October 2006

on Community strategic guidelines on cohesion.

(18) Article 2 et seq., Council Regulation (EC) No 1084/2006 of 11 July
2006 establishing a cohesion fund and repealing Regulation (EC)
No 1164/94.

C 120/62

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

16.5.2008

3.5.4
Furthermore, the Committee points out that ‘the Struc-
tural and Cohesion Funds effectively amounted to an early incar-
nation of the Lisbon Strategy, in all of its dimensions: growth,
cohesion, more and better jobs, environmental sustainability,
etc., they helped consolidate the European social model’ (19).

and

The Competitiveness

Innovation Framework
3.5.5
Programme 2007-2013, which was warmly welcomed by the
Committee (20), also includes the Intelligent Energy — Europe
Programme, which aims to promote sustainable development
in the energy field and to improve energy efficiency, security of
supply and renewable sources. The LIFE PLUS financial instru-
ment, albeit underfunded (21) aims to contribute to: the develop-
ment and demonstration of innovative policy approaches and
instruments; consolidating the knowledge base for development;
assessment, monitoring and evaluation; capacity development;
exchange of good practice;
improvement of environmental
governance; dissemination of information; and to raising aware-
ness of environmental issues.

3.5.6
The individual funding granted by the EIB for environ-
mental protection projects is also worthy of note, as previous
Committee opinions have pointed out. These loans represented
funding, which amounted to
individual
a
EUR 10,9 billion in the European Union in 2005.

third of

all

As the Committee has stressed, ‘In a context like ours,
3.5.7
open to global competition, any governance strategy for socially
responsible local and regional development must secure a
sustainable trend towards economic development and high
social standards’ in order ‘to enable high levels of environmental
and social sustainability in the development of both production
and consumption’ (22).

3.5.8
Furthermore, the Committee also believes that, since
40 % of CO2 emissions come from cities, an urban planning
policy must be a priority ‘also with a view to meeting EU target
values and complying with EU rules on inner-urban air
quality …’ (23).

3.6 Moreover, it must be pointed out that the current rules
on state aid in the field of the environment, on which the
EESC has commented (24), recognises three main types of aid:

— operating aid, granted for the management of waste and

energy conservation;

(19) OJ C 93, 27.4.2007, rapporteur: Mr Derruine.
(20) OJ C 65, 17.3.2006, rapporteurs: Mr Welschke and Ms Fusco.
(21) OJ C 255, 14.10.2005, rapporteur: Mr Ribbe.
(22) OJ C 318, 23.12.2006 on the Territorial governance of industrial

change, rapporteurs: Mr Pezzini and Mr Gibillieri.

(23) OJ C 168, 20.7.2007 on Transport in urban and metropolitan areas,

rapporteur: Mr Ribbe.

(24) OJ C 318, 23.12.2006 on state aid reform, rapporteur: Mr Pezzini, in
particular point 3.10:
‘The Community framework for state aid to
environmental protection will remain in force until 2007. Here, too, it
is important to pursue the Lisbon objectives, facilitating the introduc-
tion of the CO2 emissions trading scheme (ETS National Allocation
Plans) as part of the Kyoto Protocol objectives.’.

— aid for environmental assistance/advice, intended for small

and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) (25);

— aid for investment needed to meet environmental objectives,
to reduce or eliminate pollution and pollutants or to adapt
production methods in order to protect the environment.

The rules must be reviewed by the end of 2007.

The Committee believes the following action is required

3.7
immediately:

— improve and strengthen the Emission Trading Scheme (26);

— develop carbon capture and storage;

— limit transport emissions;

— focus on sustainable growth;

— investigate the potential for energy efficiency gains through
better consumer information and implementation of
the
guidelines for buildings' energy use, and the forthcoming
European Charter on the rights of energy consumers (27).

Thus far,

3.7.1
improvements in fuel efficiency have been
partly cancelled out, in particular by the increase in passenger
and goods transport, which has produced a net increase in
greenhouse gas emissions (cf. database of
the International
Environment
Climate
Agency) (28). At local level serious problems remain, not least
traffic congestion, noise pollution and particulate matter emis-
sions, although progress in filter technology might yield good
results in the future (29).

Partnership — European

Change

standpoint,

environmental

3.8 On the regulatory and legislative level, including from
the
implementation would not
appear satisfactory, given that the latest Internal Market Score-
board, presented in February 2007, shows that highest number
of infringements of single market provisions are to be found
precisely in the environmental field. These now account for over
18 % of all infringements. When energy and transport infringe-
ments are added, this rises to one third of all infringements (30).

(25) Cf. COM(2007) 379 of 8.10.2007, in particular paragraphs 5.2, 5.3,

5.4 and 5.5.

(26) OJ C 221, 17.9.2003 on the Proposal for a Directive of the European
Parliament and of the Council establishing a scheme for greenhouse
gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending
Council Directive 96/61/EC, COM(2001) 581 final — 2001/0245
(COD), OJ C 221 of 17.9.2002, pp. 27-30.

(27) Cf. COM (2007) 386, on which the EESC (Section for Transport,
is currently
Infrastructure and the Information Society)

Energy,
drafting an opinion.

(28) OJ C 80, 30.3.2004 on Project mechanisms-Kyoto (II). Rapporteur:

Ms Nouail Marliere.

(29) OJ C 318, 23.12.2006 on the Thematic Strategy on the Urban Envir-

onment, rapporteur: Mr Pezzini.

(30) Cf. Scoreboard 15 bis, Internal Market, December 2006, page 21

(http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/score/docs/score15bis/score15-
bis_en.pdf) ‘Breakdown of infringement proceedings per sector—.Figure 16:
“Environment”, “energy and transport” and “taxation and customs union”
account for half of the infringement proceedings’.

16.5.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 120/63

3.8.1
The first piece of Community legislation to have the
‘polluter pays’ principle amongst its prime objectives was Direc-
tive 2004/35/EC of 21 April 2004, on environmental liability
with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental
damage, which the Committee warmly welcomed (31) because
the intention is to prevent damage and to return nature to its
original condition.

3.8.2
In 2006, revisions of a number of pieces of legislation
were undertaken, for reasons including improving, simplifying
and streamlining regulatory,
and administrative
machinery. These include:

legislative

— Directive 2002/95/EC (RoHS), which provides for the prohi-
bition and restricted use of lead, mercury, cadmium, hexava-
lent chromium and some flame retardants in electrical and
electronic equipment;

— Directive 2002/96/EC, also known as the WEEE Directive,
aiming to prevent and restrict waste flows of equipment to
rubbish dumps by means of re-use and recycling policies for
equipment and components;

— the IPPC Directive on Integrated Pollution and Prevention

Control;

— the Framework Directive on Waste (32), merging three

previous directives.

for manufacturers

The Committee believes that these provide excellent
3.8.3
opportunities
to integrate environmental
aspects into their long-term industrial strategy, and to create
market opportunities
through the improved environmental
performance of products and production processes.

special

importance must be

3.8.4 With regard to the Integrated Product Policy (IPP)
strategy,
the
Committee stressed in its opinion on the subject (33), to the EUP
Framework Directive 2005/32/EC on the Eco-design of
energy-using products, which covers all equipment that uses
energy, whether electricity or fossil-fuelled, and aims to promote
a framework integrating environmental considerations into the
design stage for numerous industrial sectors.

attributed,

as

3.8.5
Regulation EC/1907/2006, best known as REACH —
Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals — will
replace some forty regulations, creating a single system for all
in the past (34),
chemical
expressed concern over its complexity and the length of the
technical annexes.

substances. The Committee has,

3.9 With regard to voluntary measures, there are now useful
instruments ranging from Environmental Agreements and the
European ecolabel scheme to the Community eco-management
and audit scheme (EMAS), to which can be added the proposed
frameworks for corporate social responsibility and the develop-
ment of socially responsible territories.

(31) OJ C 241, 7.10.2002, rapporteur: Ms Sanchez,

7.10.2002.

(32) COM 2005/667 final.
(33) OJ C 117, 30.4.2004, rapporteur: Mr Pezzini.
(34) OJ C 294, 25.11.2005, rapporteur: Mr Braghin.

in OJ C 241 of

The

action

3.9.1
plan,
Environmental Agreements
presented by the Commission in July 2002 (35), which was the
subject of an EESC opinion (36), aimed to secure ‘a strategy for
further coordinated action to simplify the regulatory environ-
ment’, in accordance with the mandate issued by the European
Council at Lisbon and confirmed at the Stockholm, Laeken and
Barcelona summits,
in order to provide legal certainty and
promote a dynamic climate for economic operators.

3.9.2 Moreover, by 1996 the Commission had already
launched voluntary environmental agreements such as self-regu-
lation and co-regulation instruments, which have the advantage
of capitalising on the forward-looking approach of industry, and
supplying effective, tailored solutions to problems. These instru-
ments can be used more quickly and they significantly improve
‘legislative methods to make them less complex, more flexible,
closer to Union citizens and easier for the public to understand’,
as well as promoting ‘the adoption of voluntary environmental
agreements at Community level’ (37).

The Committee would also stress here that

3.9.3
‘the
Commission should always consider whether its intended objec-
tives actually necessitate a regulatory framework or whether, in
fact, self-regulation or co-regulation would be sufficient. The
EESC believes that among the various options, the aim must be
to choose the one which can meet the same objectives at a
lower cost and with a lower administrative burden, and which
can ensure maximum transparency and stakeholder participa-
tion’ (38).

impact

information,

3.9.4 With regard to the European ecolabel, which firms
can request pursuant to Regulation (EC) 1980/2000 to promote
than other
products with a smaller environmental
products of the same category and to provide consumers with
clear, scientifically proven product
its potential
success could only be mitigated by the proliferation of Com-
munity labels and of additional national ecolabels: ‘The reference
labelling
to adoption of different systems of environmental
(including green claims and self-declarations) prompts certain
reservations owing to the need to provide for further instru-
ments and monitoring mechanisms at national level to assess
their validity. In this connection, it should be remembered that
in its opinion on the new eco-label Regulation (39),
the ESC,
expressed its opposition to the’ proliferation ‘of green labels
because they could generate confusion in consumers and prove
misleading’ (40).

The Committee warmly welcomed (41) voluntary appli-
3.9.5
cation of the Community eco-management and audit scheme
(EMAS), regarding it as ‘a useful instrument for achieving the
main objective of promoting sustainable production and

(35) COM 2002/412 Communication from the Commission on Environ-
mental agreements at Community level within the framework of the
action plan on the simplification and improvement of the regulatory
environment.

(36) OJ C 61, 14.3.2003, rapporteur: Mr Gafo Fernández.
(37) OJ C 61, 14.3.2003.
(38) EESC exploratory opinion CESE 562/2007 fin — INT/347: Simplifica-
tion of the regulatory environment for the machinery sector, rappor-
teur: Mr Iozia.

(39) OJ C 296 of 29.9.1997.
(40) CESE 925/2001, rapporteur: Mr Pezzini.
(41) OJ C 258, 10.9.1999, rapporteur: Mr Pezzini and CESE 1160/2006
on Climate change — the role of civil society, rapporteur: Mr Ehnmark.

C 120/64

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

16.5.2008

consumption (development) patterns’ and ‘to recognise and
reward organisations that go beyond minimum legal compliance
and continuously improve their environmental performance (42).
individual organisations and institutions
By applying EMAS,
explore concrete ways to measure and reduce the environmental
impact of various activities, for instance energy and materials
use and travelling by car or railway or airplane’ (43).

3.9.9
The Committee believes that it is particularly important
to align public procurement contract details with environ-
mental protection and sustainability requirements, both in
public works and concessions, and in the ‘excluded sectors’.

social

Corporate

responsibility is — as

3.9.6
the
Committee has stressed repeatedly (44) — ‘an important contri-
bution to realising the strategic goal which the EU set itself at
the Lisbon Summit’ and which cannot, in the Committee's view,
be seen in isolation from the notion of socially responsible terri-
tories and the territorial governance of
industrial change
through ‘the generation and development of new businesses,
new professional profiles and more and better jobs, while
preserving the European social model (45) and focusing on a
knowledge-based economy’ and through an integrated territorial
approach in order
to encourage ‘optimising environmental
protection during economic and industrial change’ (46). During
the period 2000-2005, EU expenditure on environmental
protection reached an annual average of circa 1,7 % of industry
value added (47).

3.9.7
The integration of environmental aspects into European
standardisation has been addressed in several EESC opinions (48),
where the Committee states it is ‘convinced of the need to speed
up the standardisation process without weighing it down,
thereby ensuring development and high quality in all spheres of
the internal market, including the environment. The aim must
be to make the process efficient and inexpensive and to mini-
mise red tape, whilst building the capacity of Member States'
institutions as a preparatory measure.’

3.9.8
The Committee would reiterate the need for compat-
ibility between environmental regulations and non-binding stan-
dards, which are based on greater awareness of environmental
considerations and quality;
there is a need to
promote more flexible codes of conduct that can provide eco-
friendly standardisation processes for firms and for SMEs in par-
ticular.

furthermore,

(42) EESC members have called repeatedly for the Committee's headquar-
ters to undergo EMAS certification, as the Commission has suggested
for its own buildings.

(43) OJ C 318, 23.12.2006 — the role of civil society, rapporteur:

Mr Ehnmark.

(44) OJ C 169, 6.7.1992 on the Green Paper Promoting a European frame-
work for corporate social responsibility, rapporteurs: Ms Hornung-
Draus, Ms Engelen-Kefer and Mr Hoffelt; OJ C 223, 31.8.2005 on
Information and measurement instruments for CSR in a globalised
economy, rapporteur: Ms Pichenot; OJ C 325, 30.12.2006 on Imple-
menting the Partnership for growth and jobs: Making Europe a pole of
excellence on corporate social responsibility, rapporteur: Ms Pichenot.

(45) OJ C 185, 8.8.2006, rapporteur: Mr Ehnmark.
(46) OJ C 318, 23.12.2006 on The territorial governance of industrial
change: the role of the social partners and the contribution of the
Competitiveness and Innovation Programme (own-initiative opinion),
rapporteurs: Mr Pezzini and Mr Gibillieri.

(47) Industry GVA is currently 22 % of GDP (71 % services; 5 % construc-

tion and 2 % agriculture), source: EUROSTAT.

(48) 29.11.2001; OJ C 117, 30.4.2004 and OJ C 74, 23.3.2005, rappor-

teur: Mr Pezzini.

4. General comments

4.1
The Committee believes that, given the close interconnec-
tion between competitiveness, energy and environmental issues,
which have a significant impact,
in particular on many basic
and intermediate goods industries, thus requiring major struc-
tural adjustment in the manufacturing industry, there is a need
for a closely coordinated, integrated approach to a number of
policies and instruments, at various levels, backed up by simpli-
fication procedures and a continuous attack on red tape, espe-
cially for SMEs.

In order to ensure the coherence of individual initiatives,
4.2
whilst improving both sustainability and competitiveness, the
Committee believes there is a need for:

— the balanced participation of all stakeholders with the objec-
tive of creating a stable and predictable regulatory frame-
work where competitiveness, energy and environment go
hand in hand;

— a fair balance between standardisation and regulation and

voluntary self-regulation;

— support mechanisms to encourage structural adjustment and

the quest for new, clean, competitive technologies;

— training and reskilling for firms, including both management
and workers,
to pursue sustainable industrial
change that can create new jobs and new competitive poten-
tial;

in order

— a systematic ex-ante and ex-post impact assessment of regula-
tory and voluntary instruments and policies to ensure
consistency, effectiveness and sustainability;

— greater involvement of consumers, producers and distribu-
tors, both upstream, in the design stage, and downstream, in
the monitoring and evaluation of application and compli-
ance with implementing measures;

— safeguarding the European single market

to provide a
proven, genuinely level playing field — including from the
standpoint of environmental standards — at internal and
international level;

4.3 Measures to integrate environmental considerations into
industrial activities have yielded important results, enabling the
EU manufacturing industry to achieve a reduction of over 11 %
in carbon dioxide emissions from 1985 to 2000, while output
in the sector grew by 31 % over the same period (49). Moreover,
manufacturing has been totally decoupled from emissions of
acidifying gases and ozone precursors, whilst it has been rela-
tively decoupled from the use of energy and raw materials.

(49) Cf. EIPRO, Commission, JRC, May 2006.

16.5.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 120/65

4.4
The Committee is convinced that environmental protec-
tion can offer new opportunities for dialogue between the social
partners and civil society — both at
inter-professional and
sectoral level — with a view to launching sustainable industrial
change processes.

4.5 More resources must be dedicated to research and design
in order to resolve problems at source and maintain high
production and employment levels, rather than resorting to
exchanges of certificates without getting to grips with the real
problems.

4.5.1
The Committee believes that using a long term view
and roadmaps to address the challenges posed by environmental
objectives makes it easier — as in the case of the European Steel
Platform — to fine-tune and coordinate the instruments and
resources available,
in order to make the most of access to
scientific excellence and technological know-how.

National

legislation transposing European directives
4.5.2
and regulations should give various incentives to encourage a
new approach to product design, making recycling of these
products more effective.

Competitiveness, energy and environment policies are
4.6
closely intertwined and have a significant impact, particularly on
many basic and intermediate product industries.

4.7
Support for a sustainable industry requires the balanced
participation of all stakeholders, in order to create a stable and
predictable regulatory framework where competitiveness, energy
and environment go hand in hand.
Issues to be addressed
include:
— concrete implementation of better regulation principles;
— climate change, particularly the emissions trading scheme;
— initiatives to promote energy-efficiency and renewables;
— the operation of energy markets, particularly the electricity

market;

— implementation of the thematic strategy on the prevention

and recycling of waste, and related legislation;

Brussels, 12 December 2007.

— the improvement of resource efficiency and the uptake of

environmental and other innovative technologies.

4.8 With regard to environmental policies that target ‘local
public services’ such as air quality and municipal parks,
it is
obvious that changes in ‘environmental quality’ have consider-
able local repercussions in terms of housing costs, employment,
involvement of
the less well-to-do classes in environmental
protection decisions and, ultimately, their ability to apply effi-
ciency standards in order to save energy.

4.8.1
Turning to employment, while obsolete jobs are largely
being replaced by jobs created in the public and private sectors,
the tertiary sector
requires a huge training programme to
environmental
refocus
approach, backed up by a European strategy for sustainable
mobility.

professional

towards

profiles

an

4.9
In order to strengthen the effectiveness and positive
impact of environmental protection measures, the Committee
believes there is a need to ensure there is an international
dimension to Community coordination actions. It is important
that Europe can ensure maximum global commitment and
compliance with
requirements,
including by inserting appropriate environmental compliance
clauses in negotiated agreements. In particular the rules of inter-
national commerce ought to take account not just of social but
also of ecological dumping (50), and encourage environmental
technology transfers and the implementation of eco-innovation
across the globe (51).

environmental

protection

4.10
In this connection, there is a need to encourage and
support initiatives to define ambitious but feasible roadmaps, in
order to develop international sectoral benchmarks for energy
efficiency and the reduction of harmful emissions, based on best
available technologies (BAT (52)).

4.11
The European Union must persist with the industria-
lised countries and major emerging countries — in particular
China and India — in its quest for new avenues that can lead all
countries towards sustainable development. This could involve
reframing Community development policy (53).

The President
of the European Economic and Social Committee
Dimitris DIMITRIADIS

(50) Cf. Green Paper on Better Ship Dismantling, COM(2007) 269 of

22 May 2007.

(51) Council Conclusions on giving a new impetus to EU environment

policy, 28.6.2007.

(52) BAT = Best Available Technologies.
(53) See the Sustainability Impact Assessments (SIA) under the EPA nego-
tiations with ACP countries (cf. Exploratory opinion REX/189 —
OJ C 65, 17.3.2006, rapporteur: Mr Pezzini, co-rapporteur: Mr
Dantin).