COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS The Sixth Community Environment Action Programme FINAL ASSESSMENT
Date: 2011-08-31
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU programme, biodiversity, climate change, environmental policy, environmental protection, international cooperation, pollution control measures, waste management

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 31.8.2011 
COM(2011) 531 final 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL 
COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 

The Sixth Community Environment Action Programme  

FINAL ASSESSMENT   

(Text with EEA relevance) 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
1. 

POLITICAL CONTEXT 

The world today is very different to that of 2002 when the ten-year 6th Environment Action 
Programme1 (EAP) was adopted. It is recovering from a deep financial and economic crisis, 
which  clearly  demonstrates  the  systemic  risks  of  uncritically  maintaining  business-as-usual. 
This  points  once  again  to  the  importance  of  the  concepts  of  green  growth  and  a  resource-
efficient, low-carbon economy which can be seen as offering good policy guidance for global 
economic transformation in the long-term. 

The  current  EU  agenda  offers  many  opportunities  for  environment  policy  to  evolve  in  this 
direction. The Europe 2020 Strategy2, with the importance it attributes to resource efficiency, 
and economic governance in the form of the European semester, are effective frameworks to 
ensure  that  environmental  objectives  are  integrated  into  the  EU's  overall  socio-economic 
agenda. The Commission has recently adopted an ambitious new strategy3 to halt the loss of 
biodiversity  and  ecosystem  services  in  the  EU  by  2020  as  well  as  a  Communication  on  the 
preparations for the Rio+20 Conference4. It has also recently adopted a Roadmap for moving 
to  a  low-carbon  economy  in  20505,  a  White  Paper  on  Transport6,  and  Communications  on 
Energy 20207 and  an Energy  Efficiency Plan  20118. The Commission also plans in 2011 to 
adopt a Roadmap to a resource-efficient Europe. The agenda for 2012 includes a blueprint for 
water  policy  and  review  of  the  Sustainable  Consumption  and  Production  and  Sustainable 
Industrial Policy Action Plan9. Air quality policy is to be reviewed in 2013. The Commission 
has  presented  proposals  on  the  next  multi-annual  financial  framework  and  is  preparing 
proposals to reform the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) 
and Cohesion Policy (CP).  

All these new initiatives will complement existing environmental legislation, which has been 
consolidated  over  the  past  few  years  and  covers  almost  all  areas  of  environment,  with  the 
exception  of  soil.  Once  properly  implemented  –  and  the  Commission's  Communication  on 
implementation  of  EU  environmental  legislation  for  adoption  in  2011  should  help  -  this 
legislation will help to protect the environment and limit negative consequences on health.  

Environment  Action  Programmes  have  guided  the  development  of  EU  environment  policy 
since  the  early  seventies  and  the  6th  EAP  should  be  seen  as  part  of  a  continuous  process 
spanning  almost  40  years.  The  6th  EAP  was  the  first  Environment  Action  Programme  to  be 
adopted  by  the  Council  and  the  European  Parliament  via  the  co-decision  procedure.  Its 
lifespan  encompassed  two  enlargements  which  saw  the  Community  grow  from  fifteen 
Member  States  to  a  Union  of  twenty-seven  and  through  which  an  increased  level  of 
environmental protection has been driven by the uptake of EU environmental legislation. 

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 

OJ L242/1 10.9.2002 
COM(2010)2020, 3.3.2010 
COM(2011)244, 3.5.2011 
COM(2011) 363, 20.6.2011 
COM(2011) 112, 8.3.2011 
COM(2011) 144, 28.3.2011 
COM(2010) 639 
COM(2011) 109, 8.3.2011 
COM(2008)397, 16.7.2008 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
This Communication presents a final assessment of the Programme, which gives some clear 
insights into environmental policy-making today and in the future.  

2. 

GENERAL FINDINGS 

This final assessment is based on an external assessment, the results of a public consultation10, 
and the EEA report "The European Environment - State and Outlook 2010" (SOER 2010)11.  

From  the  outset,  it  should  be  recognised  that  the  6th  EAP  has  been  one  of  a  number  of 
environment policy drivers, the respective contributions of which are not easy to disentangle. 
The  approach  to  this  assessment  has  therefore  been  a  pragmatic  one,  consisting  of  an 
assessment of the various sources mentioned above, to arrive at the more salient achievements 
and shortfalls for the various aims and objectives defined in the 6th EAP.  

Notwithstanding  these  caveats,  the  overall  conclusion  of  this  final  assessment  is  that  on 
balance the 6th EAP was helpful in that it provided an overarching framework for environment 
policy. The large majority of actions set out in the Programme have been or are in the process 
of being completed. 

Preparation  of  the  programme  gave  actors  an  opportunity  for  a  comprehensive  stock-taking 
and  better  understanding  of  EU  environment  policy  as  a  whole.  As  it  was  adopted  by  co-
decision, stakeholders see it as having more legitimacy than previous programmes. This has 
helped  to  create  a  wider  sense  of  ownership  for  subsequent  policy  proposals.  Many 
stakeholders  see  the  6th  EAP  as  a  reference  point,  not  only  at  national  level  but,  in  some 
Member States, at regional and local levels, from which to defend environment policy against 
competing  policy  demands,  to  secure  appropriate  funding  and  to  provide  predictability  for 
business regarding certain future policy developments. 

The  seven  thematic  strategies12  of  the  6th  EAP  –  air,  pesticides,  waste  prevention  and 
recycling, natural resources, soil, marine environment, urban environment – were developed 
in  order  to  strengthen  policy  integration  and  to  improve  the  knowledge  base.  Although 
progress  varied  across  the  areas  covered  by  the  thematic  strategies,  in  some  cases  their 
preparation helped to build political will for the adoption of effective targets and timetables, 
and  their  subsequent  implementation.  This  encouraged  a  more  holistic  approach  to 
environmental policy-making and established a consensus on how best to proceed in view of 
concerns  over  competence  or  insufficiently  robust  data.  Marine,  soil,  urban  and  resources 
strategies  are  seen  by  stakeholders  as  having  provided  most  impetus.  Some  of  these  even 
spawned specific legislative instruments. Those on air, pesticides, and waste prevention and 
recycling focused to a greater degree on revising existing measures to improve coherence and 
to address specific gaps.  

However,  evidence  of  the  6th  EAP's  capacity  to  leverage  the  adoption  of  specific 
environmental  instruments  is  not  compelling.  Part  of  the  varying  progress  towards  the 

10 
11 
12 

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/newprg/final.htm 
http://www.eea.europa.eu/soer/ 
COM(2005)446  (Air  Pollution);  COM(2006)372  (Sustainable  Use  of  Pesticides);  COM(2005)666 
(Prevention  and  Recycling  of  Waste);  COM(2005)670  (Sustainable  Use  of  Natural  Resources); 
COM(2006)231  (Soil  Protection);  COM(2005)504  (Protection  and  Conservation  of  the  Marine 
Environment); and COM(2005)718 (Urban Environment). 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
objectives set out in the 6th EAP can be explained by the design of the Programme, especially 
in light of the respective levels of ambition in the different thematic areas. For example, the 
objectives  set  for  climate  change  were  subsequently  overtaken  by  the  dynamic  policy 
developments  in  that  field  which  were  not  driven  by  the  6th  EAP.  In  contrast,  the  2010 
biodiversity target was not achieved, as strong initial commitment from MS was not matched 
by adequate means. 

While the intent of the Treaty is that general environment action programmes should focus on 
priority  objectives,  the  co-decision  process  resulted  in  a  6th  EAP  with  a  large  number  of 
actions,  varying  both  in  scope  and  effect.  This,  coupled  with  the  absence  of  a  longer-term 
vision, compromised the Programme's capacity to deliver a clear message, which would have 
helped to maintain its profile more effectively throughout its lifespan. The thematic strategies 
were  developed  at  significant  costs  in  terms  of  time  and  human  resources:  the  last  strategy 
was  adopted  as  late  as  2006.  Inadequate  implementation  and  enforcement  of  EU 
environmental legislation has also been a limiting factor. 
The ten-year timeframe of the 6th EAP was not always appropriate. It proved long enough to 
cover policy formulation, adoption and the early stages of implementation in some areas (e.g. 
waste). In others (e.g. resources, biodiversity) it proved to be too short because of the need for 
more  information  or  because  of  other  obstacles.  Lastly,  in  terms  of  financing,  while  the  6th 
EAP influenced the 2007-201313 multi-annual financial framework, the timing of its adoption 
in 2002 was too late for the period 2000-200714.  

3. 

PRIORITY AREAS  

This section provides a more detailed assessment of the priority areas of the 6th EAP – nature 
and  biodiversity,  environment  and  health,  natural  resources  and  waste,  climate  change,  and 
international  issues  –  in  terms  of  their  contribution,  the  achievements  and  shortfalls  of 
environment policy during the period, and lessons learned.  

3.1. 

Nature and biodiversity 

Contribution:  For  nature  and  biodiversity,  the  6th  EAP  instigated  the  development  of  the 
thematic  strategies  on  soil  protection  and  on  the  protection  and  conservation  of  the  marine 
environment. It pointed to the need to build a stronger knowledge base, to improve financing, 
and  to  step  up  current  activities.  It  sought  to  raise  political  awareness  of  nature  and 
biodiversity to a level similar to other environmental issues, in particular climate change, and 
highlighted  the  need  to  increase  recognition  of  the  economic  value  of  biodiversity  and 
ecosystem services in the policy process.  

Achievements: The Natura 2000 network of protected sites has been extended to cover some 
17%  of  the  EU's  total  land  area,  while  the  Thematic  Strategy  on  Soil  Protection12  has 
highlighted  the  importance  of  soil  as  a  key  resource  and  in  biodiversity  protection.  The 
Thematic Strategy on the Protection and Conservation of the Marine Environment12 laid the 
foundations for the protection of marine biodiversity, while nitrate and phosphorus pollution 
of  rivers  and  lakes  has  declined.  Moreover,  building  the  knowledge  base  has  been  a  key 
driving force, e.g. the TEEB initiative (The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity)15 has 

13 
14 
15 

COM(2004)487 
COM(97) 2000 
http://www.teebweb.org/ 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
boosted  the  ongoing  process  of  putting  a  monetary  value  on  natural  capital  and  ecosystem 
services. The EU 2010 Biodiversity baseline will serve as a benchmark and the updated SEBI 
2010 (Streamlining European 2010 Biodiversity Indicators)16 will be key to measuring future 
progress. Finally, a new ten-year strategy to protect biodiversity has recently been adopted3.  

Shortfalls:  The  overall  target  of  the  6th  EAP  to  halt  biodiversity  decline  by  2010  was  not 
reached  and  the  general  trend  of  most  indicators  relevant  to  biodiversity  has  been  negative, 
albeit  with  significant  regional  variations,  e.g.  land  abandonment,  habitat  fragmentation 
resulting  from  developments  in  transport  infrastructures,  urban  sprawl,  and  inappropriate 
agricultural  practices.  A  substantial  proportion  of  Europe's  freshwaters  are  at  risk  of  not 
achieving a good status by 201511. Out of more than 10,000 non-native species in the EU, it is 
estimated  that  10-15%  have  negative  impacts  on  nature  and  biodiversity.  Detailed  bio-
geographical evaluations of the species and European habitat types listed in the EU Habitats 
Directive17  indicate  that  only  17%  of  habitat  types  and  species  have  a  "favourable 
conservation  status"18.  Development  of  a  network  of  marine  protected  areas  has  been  slow, 
designated  sites  accounting  for  approximately  6%  of  species  and  10%  of  habitats  to  date. 
Despite having highlighted the sustainable use of soil as a priority in the 6th EAP, the Council 
has not been able to make progress on this issue, in particular by adopting the proposed Soil 
Framework Directive19. This has to date limited the ability to reach the 6th EAP objective on 
soil management practices in the EU.  

Lessons learned: More progress could have been made towards the goal of halting the decline 
of biodiversity by 2010 had it been matched by the necessary political attention and financial 
commitments from both EU and Member States.  

3.2. 

Environment and health  

Contribution: The 6th EAP prompted a useful stock-taking exercise of existing commitments 
and planned actions and brought greater focus to the linkages between environmental factors 
and  human  health.  It  helped  to  push  forward  action  which  otherwise  might  not  have 
happened,  e.g.  on  the  urban  environment,  or  which  may  have  taken  longer  or  been  less 
comprehensive without the impetus of the Programme, e.g. in relation to pesticides. The 2005 
Thematic  Strategy  on  Air  Pollution12  set  up  a  comprehensive  and  holistic  methodological 
framework built on a solid knowledge base which continues to provide the basis for integrated 
policy on air quality.  

Achievements:  While  protecting  human  health  has  been  an  objective  of  many  environment 
policies,  e.g.  on  air,  water  and  chemicals,  the  2004-2010  Environment  and  Health  Action 
Plan20  helped  to  increase  awareness  and  information  on  the  linkages  between  environment 
and health. Comprehensive legislation was adopted in the areas of chemicals, pesticides and 
water, although long implementation times mean it may take time to have an impact. Levels 
of SO2, NOx and lead in air have declined over the last nine years. In addition, new measures 
have been taken which were not in the 6th EAP, reflecting changes in policy priorities due to 
increased risks of water scarcity and forest fires. 

16 
17 
18 
19 
20 

http://biodiversity.europa.eu/topics/sebi-indicators 
Council Directive 92/43/EEC, OJ L 206 , 22.07.1992  
http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/eu-2010-biodiversity-baseline/ 
COM(2006)232 
COM(2004)416 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Shortfalls: The 6th EAP target that, within one generation, chemicals would be produced and 
used  only  in  ways  that  did  not  lead  to  a  significant  negative  impact  on  health  and  the 
environment is unlikely to be fully met. In addition, data is still scarce on the concentrations 
of  chemicals  in  the  environment  and  in  humans,  and  on  the  effects  of  exposure  to  complex 
cocktails of chemicals. The Thematic Strategy on the Urban Environment12 does not appear to 
have had a significant impact with respect to the 6th EAP objective of improving the quality of 
the  urban  environment.  Particulate  matter  and  ozone  remain  major  concerns,  in  particular, 
PM10 concentrations in many EU urban areas continue to make a significant contribution to 
earlier deaths and disability from respiratory diseases, cardiovascular diseases and cancer. An 
estimated 40% of the EU's population live in urban areas with levels of noise at night above 
the  recommended  WHO  levels.  Access  to  water  of  satisfactory  quality  is  insufficient  and 
represents a risk to health in a number of rural areas.  

There are also a number of gaps in legislation - not exclusively environmental - for example 
in relation to indoor air (given that European citizens spend an estimated 90% of their time 
indoors),  and  on  emissions  from  domestic  and  commercial  appliances.  In  addition,  national 
emission ceilings have yet to be revised and excess atmospheric nitrogen deposition is still an 
issue across the EU.  

Lessons  learned:  More  attention  is  needed  to  support  implementation  at  both  national  and 
regional levels. Research findings and information on the impacts of environmental quality on 
health should be better integrated into the broader policy objective of improving public health. 
The urban environment needs to be better reflected in policy development, given that nearly 
75% of the EU population reside in urban areas. 

3.3. 

Natural resources and waste  

Contribution: The 6th EAP strengthened the link between waste policy and resource policy, 
and  helped  to  reinforce  waste  management  and  move  towards  policy  based  on  sustainable 
consumption  and  production.  The  Thematic  Strategy  on  the  Sustainable  Use  of  Natural 
Resources12  inspired  further  research,  led  to  the  creation  of  new  forums21  and  formed  the 
nucleus  of  the  current  work  on  resource  efficiency.  The  Thematic  Strategy  on  Waste 
Prevention  and  Recycling12  provided  a  common  strategic  framework  for  EU  legislation  on 
waste.  

Achievements: Resource use is no longer increasing at the same rate as economic growth. The 
SCP-SIP  Action  Plan9  set  out  an  integrated  series  of  measures  to  green  European 
manufactured products, among them the creation of a multi-stakeholder platform - the Retail 
Forum  -  designed  to  influence  more  sustainable  consumption.  Recently  adopted  measures 
such  as  the  Eco-design  Directive22,  the  revised  Ecolabel  Regulation  and  the  Green  Public 
Procurement initiative are designed to have positive impacts on resource use in the future.  

Waste legislation has also been significantly modernised and simplified in order to better meet 
the overarching objectives set in the 6th EAP. Waste management legislation has been made 
more  comprehensive  by  incorporating  life-cycle  analysis,  by  establishing  re-use,  recycling, 
and  recovery  targets  and  by  reducing  the  hazardousness  of  certain  wastes.  The  amount  of 
potentially  harmful  substances  in  electronics  placed  on  the  EU  market  has  already  been 

21 
22 

The ESTAT Data Centre on Natural Resources and the UNEP International Resource Panel 
Directive 2009/125/EC, OJ L285/10, 31.10.2009 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
substantially  reduced  as  a  result  of  the  Directive  on  Restrictions  on  the  Hazardous  Use  of 
Substances23.  

Shortfalls: In absolute terms resource use is still increasing which is not compatible with the 
goal  of  respecting  the  carrying  capacity  of  the  environment  in  the  longer  term.  Substantial 
differences in resource productivity among Member States persist. There is also an increasing 
reliance on imports which now account for 20% of all resources consumed and for which the 
impact is largely unknown.  

In contrast to the 6th EAP objective of reducing the overall volume of waste generated in the 
EU, it appears that waste generation has at best stabilised, and is perhaps increasing. Although 
the Waste Framework Directive places greater emphasis on waste prevention than previously, 
the  absence  of  a  sufficiently  robust  knowledge  base  and  different  circumstances  at  national 
level did not permit more tangible measures or target-setting.  

Lessons learned: Food and drink, private transport and housing are considered to account for 
70% to 80% of the EU environmental impact on consumption24. Moreover, it is estimated that 
over  80%  of  all  product-related  environmental  impacts  are  determined  during  the  design 
phase  of  a  product11.  More  focus  is  needed  on  these  sectors  and  on  eco-design  in  order  to 
tackle the environmental impacts of human activities and behaviour. The implementation of 
waste legislation continues to present a challenge, especially as trade in waste is increasing. 

3.4. 

Climate change 

Contribution:  Although  the  6th  EAP  helped  in  the  climate  change  area,  mostly  through 
priority-setting  and  by  mobilising  broader  institutional  support,  other  external  drivers  were 
more  forceful,  e.g.  international  developments,  public  awareness,  the  Stern  review  on  the 
economics of climate change and the costs of inaction, the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report 
which  provided  a  sound  scientific  basis  for  climate  action,  geopolitical  concerns  regarding 
fossil  fuel  dependency,  energy  prices  and  energy  security,  and  increasing  evidence  of  the 
effects  of  climate  change  across  the  globe  and  their  associated  costs,  due  notably  to  more 
numerous extreme weather events in many parts of the world.  

Achievements: Although ambitions in relation to action by the international community were 
not achieved, the objectives and ambitions of the 6th EAP in relation to targets and progress at 
EU  level  were  exceeded.  The  2007  Climate  and  Energy  Package  set  2020  targets  for 
greenhouse  gas  emissions  reduction,  share  of  renewable  energy  and  energy  efficiency.  The 
2005 EU Emissions Trading Scheme  25 put a price on carbon, and the Nitrates and Landfill 
Directives26 succeeded in reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Adaptation emerged as 
a  new  area  of  policy-making.  The  Carbon  Capture  and  Storage  Directive27  was  adopted, 
although not included in the 6th EAP. Overall, binding quantifiable targets, such as the Kyoto 
Protocol target of reducing emissions by 8% by 2012, will be exceeded.  

23 
24 
25 
26 

27 

Directive 2002/95/EC, OJ L37/19, 13.2.2003 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ipp/pdf/eipro_report.pdf 
Directive 2004/101/EC amending Directive 2003/87/EC, OJ L 338, 13.11.2004, p. 18–23 
Council Directive 91/676/EEC, OJ L 375 , 31/12/1991 and Council Directive 1999/31/EEC, OJ L 182 , 
16/07/1999  
Directive 2009/31/EC, OJ L140/114, 5.6.2009 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Shortfalls: Quantifiable targets, such as the renewable energy target of 12% of total energy 
use  by  201028,  were  more  aspirational  in  nature  and  were  more  difficult  to  achieve.  In 
addition, the increases in GHG emissions in the transport sector continue to be closely linked 
to economic growth11. Emissions from hydro-fluorocarbons also increased between 1990 and 
200811 but remain unregulated internationally.  

Lessons  learned:  The  6EAP  contributed  to  increased  public  interest  in  the  issue.  However, 
what proved to be more important was the ability to make a clear cost and benefits case for 
action, as well as political commitment at EU Heads of State level to key policy objectives.  

3.5. 

International issues 

Contribution:  The  6th  EAP  reiterated  EU  commitments  (a)  to  integrate  environmental 
considerations  into  all  EU  external  relations  and  (b)  to  the  external  dimension  of  the  EU 
Sustainable Development Strategy. 

Achievements:  The  EU’s  international  commitments  under  the  Convention  on  Biological 
Diversity  and  the  2010  Nagoya  agreement  on  biodiversity  targets  recently  helped  to  push 
forward  action  on  biodiversity  at  the  international  level,  and  some  other  Multilateral 
Environmental  Agreements,  such  as  the  PIC  Rotterdam  Convention29  and  the  POPs 
Stockholm  Convention30,  have  had  notable  success.  The  EU  has  also  actively  promoted 
coordination  between  climate  change  and  biodiversity  at  international  level.  Sustainable 
development chapters have been included in free trade agreements and lower barriers to trade 
in environmental goods and services have been pursued. Last but not least, the EU has had a 
strong global impact via its environmental legislation, as countries exporting to the EU have 
had to adopt EU product standards.  

Shortfalls:  Despite  the  EU's  efforts  to  strengthen  multi-lateral  cooperation  and  demonstrate 
its commitment to international conventions and agreements, little progress was made towards 
improved  global  environmental  governance.  Although  environmental  concerns  were 
promoted in the EU's trade relations policies, they could have been better integrated into core 
issues such as access to markets in trade agreements. Integrating the environmental dimension 
into  development  aid  was  too  dependent  on  the  priority  attributed  to  it  by  beneficiary 
countries.  

Lessons  learned:  Environmental  challenges,  which  are  increasingly  global,  require  a  more 
cohesive  and  focused  effort  within  the  EU  so  that  it  can  play  its  role  more  effectively  in 
shaping  international  policy  and  continuing  to  strive  for  better  global  environmental 
governance. An agreed vision setting out key objectives should be the starting point for future 
EU action to tackle global and regional environmental problems. This would help to mobilise 
limited financial resources in the optimum way. The EU's growing external footprint31 must 
be  considered  along  with  the  effectiveness  of  the  environmental  dimension  in  aid  policies. 
More  could  and  should  be  done  to  raise  awareness  of  the  economic  costs  and  benefits  of 
environmental  issues,  and  the  costs  of  inaction.  The  EU  should  also  promote  the  "green 

28 
29 

30 
31 

Directive 2001/77EC OJ L 283, 27.10.2001 
Convention  on  the  Prior  Informed  Consent  (PIC)  Procedure  for  Certain  Hazardous  Chamicals  and 
Pesticides in International Trade, Council Decision on conclusion OJ L 063, 6.3.2003 
Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs), Council Decision on conclusion, 14.10.2004 
A comparison between human demand and the Earth's ecological capacity to regenerate, e.g. the water 
footprint measures the total amount of water used to produce good s and services consumed. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                 
economy"  at  global  level,  integrating  environmental,  social  and  economic  aspects  such  as 
poverty alleviation. 

4. 

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE STRATEGIC APPROACHES AND INSTRUMENTS  

In  addition  to  the  priority  areas  above,  the  6th  EAP  refers  to  a  range  of  policy-making 
approaches and instruments including coherence and integration, finance and implementation 
and enforcement. These are assessed below.  

Contribution:  The  6th  EAP  complemented  the  Lisbon  Strategy32  and  the  Sustainable 
Development Strategy33 and focused in particular on integrating environmental concerns in all 
policy  areas,  notably  through  the  Thematic  Strategies.  It  highlighted  the  need  for 
mainstreaming  environmental  expenditure  and  financing  the  Natura  2000  network.  Sixteen 
percent of the Union's multi-annual budget for 2007–201334, which covers the second half of 
the  6th  EAP,  is  nominally  allocated  to  supporting  environmental  objectives  including  the 
dedicated LIFE programme35.  

The 6th EAP strongly encouraged and promoted principles and instruments for better policy-
making,  in  particular  integrated  impact  assessments  and  increased  use  of  market-based 
instruments.  It  also  highlighted  the  importance  of  solid  scientific  foundations  for  policy 
making. 

Achievements: The 6th EAP aimed for coherence throughout the EU environment policy cycle 
itself, addressing objectives, instruments, implementation and - though difficult to measure - 
outcomes. The Thematic Strategies in particular contributed significantly to coherence within 
the Programme's  priority  areas,  either  by closing important gaps such as for the marine and 
urban  environments,  soil  and  resources,  or  by  addressing  smaller,  more  specific  lacunae  in 
existing measures, e.g. air, pesticides, waste prevention and recycling.  

With regard to integration, the 6th EAP helped to guide the ongoing process of environmental 
integration  in  reforms  of  the  CAP,  CFP  and  CP.  Forestry  actions  were  also  pursued, 
culminating in the 2010 Green Paper on forest protection and information.  

To improve the implementation of environmental legislation the Commission deployed efforts 
ranging  from  greater  emphasis  on  prevention  of  breaches  to  more  strategic  enforcement 
activities,  such  as  focusing  on  fundamental  or  systemic  infringements.  The  Environmental 
Liability  Directive  encourages  the  provision  of  financial  security  to  remedy  environmental 
damage.  

More  substantial  funding  was  made  available  from  Cohesion  Policy  funds36  for  various 
investments  into  the  environment  such  as  sustainable  energy,  biodiversity  and  nature 
protection  or  waste  and  water  infrastructure,  and  from  agricultural  funds  for  better 
environmental performance. The 6th and 7th RTD Framework Programmes37 also increasingly 

32 
33 
34 
35 
36 

37 

COM (2005) 24 
COM (2005) 97 
COM (2004) 487 
OJ L 149 9.6.2007 
In  the  2007-13  programming  period  approximately  one-third  (€  105  billion)  of  the  total  Cohesion 
Policy funds will be directly or indirectly invested into the environment 
Decisions 1513/2002/EC and 1982/2006/EC 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                 
addressed  sustainable  development  and  the  environment.  The  LIFE  programme,  despite  its 
limited size, has  had a visible impact on supporting implementation of the 6th  EAP  and  has 
enabled  targeted  efforts  in  support  of  environment  policy.  The  Environmental  Compliance 
Assistance  Programme  (ECAP)  offers  specific  help  to  small  and  medium-sized  enterprises. 
Internationally, the Commission dedicated funds from a development aid instrument38 for the 
2007–2013  period,  and  from  geographic  cooperation  programmes.  Some  progress,  albeit 
limited,  was  also  made  on  removing  Environmentally  Harmful  Subsidies  during  reviews  of 
the CFP and in the transport sector and more recently in the coal sector.  

Different sets of indicators have been developed over time to strengthen the knowledge base. 
The five-yearly SOER Reports from the EEA have provided essential stock-taking while the 
Commission’s  Annual  Environment  Policy  Reviews39  also  give  regular  information.  In 
addition, the implementation of INSPIRE40 and the further development of SEIS will improve 
environment information systems in coming years.  

Shortfalls: Although it was also flagged at the end of the 5th EAP, and despite some progress, 
more  needs  to  be  done  to  improve  coherence  between  the  different  strands  of  EU  policy. 
Over-exploitation  of  the  marine  environment  and  in  particular  fisheries  remains  a  problem. 
Transport  continues  to  impose  a  significant  environmental  burden  and  environmental 
pressures from unsustainable consumption and production continue to grow. 

Member  States  could  still  considerably  improve  their  implementation  record.  The  6th  EAP 
provided  predictability  on  forthcoming  initiatives  in  order  for  Member  States  and  those 
involved  in  implementing  legislation  to  be  better  prepared.  However,  this  did  not  seem  to 
happen: environmental infringement procedures still account for approximately one fifth of all 
open  cases  for  non-communication,  non-conformity  or  bad  application  of  EU  legislation. 
Implementation has been particularly problematic in the nature conservation, waste and water 
areas which accounted for approximately two-thirds of EU environmental infringement cases 
in 2010.  

The political debate on the 6th EAP in co-decision took place in the aftermath of the financial 
framework debate. This had already established the broad lines of the mainstream budget for 
the first half of the programme until 2006, which was not optimal. The effective translation of 
development  aid  and  geographic  cooperation  programme  funds 
into  environmental 
programmes/projects in beneficiary countries has yet to be assessed. 

Despite  recent  positive  developments,  environmental  information,  in  particular  official  data 
and  statistics,  is  still  incomplete  and  not  always  available  on  time.  Measures  to  phase  out 
environmentally harmful subsidies did not proceed as far as had been initially hoped for and 
the potential to orient taxation to promote better sustainability has not been exploited. While 
market-based  instruments  have  been  exploited  in  some  sectors,  notably  through  the 
greenhouse gas emission trading system, their full potential remains to be tapped. 

Lessons learned: The changing nature of environmental challenges requires better coherence 
from policy formulation to delivery, including at Member State level, both between priority 
areas,  e.g.  climate  change  and  air  policy,  and  in  other  environmentally  important  sectors. 

38 

39 
40 

CEC (2007) Thematic Strategy for the Environment and Sustainable Management of Natural Resources 
(ENRTP) 
COM (2009) 304 
OJ L 108 25.4.2007 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Trade-offs implicit in policy development could have been made more visible, e.g. the effects 
of  bio-energy  production,  or  the  negative  impacts  of  renewable  hydropower  on  many  water 
bodies. 

Poor implementation of environmental legislation undermines the achievement of objectives 
and  the  credibility  of  environment  policy,  and  does  not  help  to  secure  the  commitment  of 
other sectors to better performance. Commission experience points to weaknesses in the EU-
wide  environmental  governance  structure,  and  inadequacies  in  the  information-related 
provisions  of  environmental  legislation  and  other  EU  legislation,  in  monitoring  and  in 
inspections.  

Maximising the effectiveness of financing from programmes whose primary objective is not 
environmental protection requires constant scrutiny. Given the pressure on public budgets, the 
possibility to mobilise private sector capital needs to be addressed adequately and sufficiently 
early  in  EU  environment  policy  development.  Moreover,  those  policies  with  a  clear  added 
value in creating a green economy and that can be delivered in the short/medium term should 
be prioritised, e.g. Green Public Procurement. Further steps towards reform of environmental 
harmful subsidies are also needed.  

A  more  extensive  environmental  knowledge  base  is  required  together  with  a  better 
understanding of the drivers and barriers to improvements and implementation of legislation.  

Efforts to support eco-innovation in Europe should be reinforced to address barriers to market 
uptake of promising research results. 

5. 

CHALLENGES FOR THE FUTURE 

The principal pillars of environment policy and legislation, with the exception of soil, are now 
in  place,  although  their  full  potential  to  deliver  improvements  has  yet  to  materialise  due  to 
shortfalls in implementation.  

During  the  lifespan  of  the  6th  EAP,  the  global  economic  order  has  been  reshaped.  New 
economic  actors  are  emerging,  and  as  the  global  population  grows,  increasing  demand  for 
resources  is  putting  more  pressure  on  the  environment.  The  EU  has  expanded  through  its 
enlargements during this period, and so is increasingly dependent on imported resources41.  

Traditional  environment  policy  still  has  a  very  important  role  to  play  in  protecting  the 
environment.  But  changing  circumstances  and  the  increasingly  interlinked  nature  of 
environmental challenges imply a need to be flexible and to adapt.  

The underlying key challenge for future environment policy is to evolve from remediation to 
prevention  of  degradation,  and  to  help  further  integrate  the  environment  in  all  relevant 
policies.  In  this  context  a  longer  term  vision  would  provide  a  sense  of  assurance  for  policy 
direction while not compromising the need to reflect changing circumstances in the interim.  

The  Europe  2020  strategy  envisages  transformation  to  a  green,  resource-efficient, 
competitive and low-carbon economy as a potential new paradigm for sustainable economic 
growth. Achieving similar gains for resource productivity in future decades, as in past decades 

41 

(up more than 30% from 1999 to 2008, according to EEA SOER 2010) 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
                                                 
for labour productivity, will reduce EU dependency  on  raw  materials  and  natural  resources. 
Using  land  more  sustainably  will  reduce  pressures  on  ecosystems  and  the  services  they 
provide.  Equally,  technological  developments  and  innovation,  and  in  particular  eco-design, 
will help respond to these challenges and lead to more sustainable growth than in the past.  

Internationally,  the  EU  should  also  leverage  its  potential  as  a  marketplace  of  some  500 
million people with strict environmental standards and related skills and products. It can thus 
promote  sustainable  green  growth  beyond  its  borders,  including  among  the  beneficiaries  of 
EU aid, while continuing to strive for better global environmental governance. This is likely 
to require paradigm shifts in international environmental governance based on sound science-
based  policy  decisions.  Integrating  environmental  and  low-carbon  considerations  into 
business models in other sectors, and ensuring coherence from policy formulation through to 
implementation are essential. Obstacles to proper implementation of existing legislation need 
to  be  addressed,  in  particular  governance  issues  at  all  levels  in  Member  States,  in  order  to 
protect the environment and limit negative consequences on public health. 

Environmental  pressures  are  increasingly  global  and  systemic  in  nature.  Because  of  the 
complex inter-linkages, we require a more extensive knowledge base to understand better the 
drivers  and  barriers,  to  justify  the  cost  of  action  and  inaction,  and  to  develop  reliable 
indicators to measure progress toward a sustainable future for the EU.  

The potential to change the behaviour of consumers, both as individuals and as groups, and 
particularly in urban communities, in order to ease pressures on the environment, must also be 
fully  examined42.  The  use  of  market-based  instruments  to  mobilise  more  sustainable 
consumption  patterns  should  be  expanded.  In  addition,  efforts  to  remove  environmentally 
harmful subsidies should continue.  

In  the  future,  given  the  pressures  on  public  budgets,  environmental  improvements  will 
increasingly  depend  on  a  mix  of  public and private sector financing. Setting  environmental 
objectives and deciding in parallel on the extent to which they can be publicly and privately 
funded would provide a greater degree of certainty that they would be achieved. This implies 
that  environment  policy  planning  should  be  better  aligned  with  the  multi-annual  financing 
frameworks, since these set the publicly funded financial envelopes at EU level and determine 
the needs for co-financing in other policy domains on whose actions environmental outcomes 
increasingly depend.  

6. 

CONCLUSIONS 

The  results  of  this  assessment  show  that  on  balance  the  6th  EAP  helped  to  provide 
environment  policy  an  overarching  framework  for  a  decade  during  which  environmental 
legislation was consolidated and completed to cover almost all areas of environment, with the 
exception  of  soil.  Adoption  by  co-decision  has  been  seen  by  stakeholders  as  giving  it  more 
legitimacy and helped to create a wider sense of ownership for subsequent policy proposals. 
But  it  also  shows  shortcomings  and  limitations:  in  particular,  inclusion  in  the  EAP  is  no 
guarantee that Member States are actually committed to these objectives.  

Although the 6th EAP is in  its final year,  the Commission continues to pursue an ambitious 
environment  policy  that  is  now  an  integral  part  of  the  Europe  2020  Strategy  for  smart, 

42 

http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/behavioural_economics 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
                                                 
sustainable and inclusive growth. Policy orientations have been adopted on climate, transport 
and biodiversity. Others are expected later this year on resource efficiency and initiatives in 
the areas of water, air pollution, waste legislation and sustainable consumption and production 
are  foreseen  for  the  next  one  to  two  years.  Against  this  background,  the  Commission  will 
consider  how  a  new  environment  action  programme  could  best  provide  added  value  in  the 
rapidly evolving context for environment policy. 

EN 

13 

   EN