REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS on the evaluation of the 7th Environment Action Programme
Date: 2019-05-15
Institutions: Directorate-General for Environment, European Commission
Subjects: EU environmental policy, EU programme, climate change policy, environmental cooperation, environmental impact, environmental monitoring, environmental protection, management of resources, pollution control, sustainable development

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 15.5.2019  COM(2019) 233 final  REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS on the evaluation of the 7th Environment Action Programme {SWD(2019) 181 final}  
 
 
The 7th Environment Action Programme1 in a nutshell 

The EU agrees Environment Action Programmes (EAPs) to provide strategic guidance and to 
ensure predictable and coordinated action for Europe’s environment and climate policy. The 
7th Environment Action Programme (‘7th EAP’) entered into force in 2014 and runs until the 
end  of  2020.  It  sets  out  a  vision  for  20502 together  with  a  clear  narrative  on  an  integrated 
environment policy that contributes to sustainable economic growth, health and human well-
being. It is fully in line with the spirit of the UN Sustainable Development Goals.  

The programme set out nine priority objectives for action: 

- 

- 

-  

Three  thematic  priorities:  to  protect,  conserve  and  enhance  the  Union’s  natural 
capital; to turn the Union into a resource-efficient, green, and competitive low-carbon 
economy;  to  safeguard  the  Union's  citizens  from  environment-related  pressures  and 
risks to health and wellbeing. 

Four so-called "enablers": better implementation of legislation; better information by 
improving  the  knowledge  base;  wiser  investment;  integration  of  environmental 
considerations into other policies. 

Two horizontal priority objectives: to make the Union's cities more sustainable and to 
help the Union address international environmental and climate challenges. 

Under  these  nine  priority  objectives,  the  7th  EAP  lists  36  sub-objectives  and  60  concrete 
actions  to  be  delivered  by  the  EU  and  its  Member  States,  as  well  as  by  businesses, 
employers’ and workers’ groups, and individuals.  

Environment Action Programmes are agreed in line with Article 192(3) of the Treaty on the 
Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), and delivery is a shared responsibility of the EU 
and  the  Member  States.  This  evaluation  takes  account  of  the  European  Environment 
Agency's  report  on  the  state  of  the  environment  and  on  a  consultation  with  interested 
stakeholders. 

I.  The 7th EAP - a modern governance tool for today’s environmental challenges 
The Commission’s evaluation of the 7th EAP shows that the programme provides a strategic 
framework that has successfully  established the  narrative of environment  policy as  a driver 
for green growth, a healthy planet and improved wellbeing for individuals. All stakeholders 
came  together  to  set  priorities  and  this  allows  the  EU,  Member  States,  local  and  regional 
players including businesses to work effectively and efficiently in the area of environmental 
policy-making. Having a reference document at EU level that everyone has bought into has 
contributed  to  greater  coherence  and  commitment  of  EU  and  Member  States’  environment 

1 Decision  No  1386/2013/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  20  November  2013  on  a  General  Union 
Environment Action Programme to 2020 ‘Living well, within the limits of our planet’ Text with EEA relevance.  
2   “In  2050,  we  live  well,  within  the  planet's  ecological  limits.  Our  prosperity  and  healthy  environment  stem  from  an 
innovative,  circular  economy  where  nothing  is  wasted  and  where  natural  resources  are  managed  sustainably,  and 
biodiversity is protected, valued and restored in ways that enhance our society's resilience. Our low-carbon growth has 
long been decoupled from resource use, setting the pace for a safe and sustainable global society.” 

1 

 
 
                                                 
policies  and  action  aimed  at  improving  the  state  of  the  environment  and  individuals’  well-
being.  

Under the 7th EAP, general awareness of the fact that environmental protection goes hand in 
hand with a sustainable economic model that creates jobs and prosperity has increased. EU 
environment policy has evolved from targeted regulatory interventions to a stronger focus on 
integrating  the  environmental  dimension  into  other  sectoral  policies  with  a  broader 
sustainability  perspective,  such  as  the  circular  economy  package 3,  the  2030  climate  and 
energy  framework4,  the  bioeconomy  strategy5 and  the  sustainable  finance  action  plan6.  The 
consensus  built  around  the  7th  EAP  has  helped  Europe  speak  with  one  voice  in  the  global 
context  of  multilateral  cooperation,  for  example,  the  Agenda  2030  for  Sustainable 
Development and the Paris Agreement to combat climate change.  

Regular reporting on the state of the environment in Europe points to some improvements7. 
The EU is likely to meet its greenhouse gas and renewable energy targets for 2020 and has 
defined  ambitious  targets  for  20308.  Further  efforts  are  needed  to  meet  energy  efficiency 
targets 9.  The  Commission  has  also  presented  its  vision  for  an  updated  EU  bioeconomy 
strategy  and  an  EU  climate-neutral  economy  by  2050  in  line  with  the  Paris  Agreement10. 
Business is benefiting from  the circular economy, public  and  private sector  funding  for the 
climate and environment is increasing, forest management in Europe is more sustainable, and 
bathing water quality is improving.  

However,  major  challenges  remain,  and  new  ones  are  emerging 11 .  We  face  a  global 
ecological  crisis  as  we  get  close  to,  or  in  some  areas  are  already  crossing  planetary 
boundaries.  The  Commission’s  reflection  paper  Towards  a  Sustainable  Europe  by  2030 
recognises our  ecological debt as Europe’s main sustainability deficit12. This environmental 
crisis  has  a  direct  impact  on  individuals’  health.  Many  cities  in  Europe  do  not  meet 
commonly agreed and legally binding air quality standards13. The EU is not on track to meet 
the objective of halting biodiversity loss by 2020 and restoring the potential of ecosystems to 
deliver  services.  The  ecological  impacts  of  the  mobility  sector  and  the  food  system  remain 
too high.   

3 COM/2015/0614 final  
4 COM/2014/015 final 
5 A  sustainable  Bioeconomy  for  Europe:  Strengthening  the  connection  between  economy,  society  and  the  environment. 
COM/2018/673 final 
6 COM/2018/097 final 
7 Reduction  of  air,  soil  and  water  pollution,  comprehensive  protection  against  toxic  chemicals,  acid  rain  and  a  shrinking 
ozone  layer,  nature  conservation  areas,  reduction of  greenhouse  gas  emissions  are  all  on  track  – for  more  details,  see  the 
2015  state  and  outlook  of  the  environment  report  (SOER  2015)  by  the  European  Environment  Agency  (EEA): 
https://www.eea.europa.eu/soer-2015/synthesis/report/0c-executivesummary. 
8 https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/strategies/progress_en  
9 See e.g. COM(2018) 773 final 
10 COM/2018/773 final 
11  EEA  (2018):  Environmental  Indicator  Report  2018  (https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/environmental-indicator-
report-2018). 
12 Commission reflection paper on implementation of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (30 January 2019): “The most 
serious sustainability deficit and our greatest challenge is the ecological debt, which we are running up, by overusing and 
depleting our natural capital and threating our ability to meet the needs of future generations within the limits of our planet. 
Worldwide the strains on key resources, from fresh water to fertile land, put human existence in peril.” 
13 EEA (2018): Environmental Indicator Report 2018 

2 

 
                                                 
Halting  these  negative  trends  requires  above  all  a  continued  effort  to  implement  existing 
legislation14. Although action comes at a cost and requires strong collective efforts, the cost 
of inaction and the associated social fallout would be much higher.  

Within this context, the 7th EAP has played an important role in providing a governance tool 
for environment-policymaking  in  Europe. This evaluation highlights the programme’s main 
achievements and shortcomings. Based on this analysis, it identifies the main lessons learned. 
Overall, not all actions have been delivered at this stage of implementation. While there has 
been progress across the board — in some areas more than was envisaged in the 7th EAP — 
there is a clear need for further commitment. 

II.  Lessons learned  

This evaluation of the 7th EAP has identified a number of valuable lessons for any future 
environment action programme. 

  Having  a  strategy  for  EU  environmental  policy-making  provides  added  value. 
The  7th  EAP  is  seen  as  a  solid  strategy  with  strong  links  to  national  environment 
strategies. Many Member States have taken the 7th EAP as a blueprint for their own 
environment  policy  strategies  or  specific  measures.  As  a  result,  the  7th  EAP  has 
helped provide more predictable, faster and better-coordinated actions in environment 
policy. Predictability has helped deliver actions.  

  The 7th EAP is broadly in line with good governance practice. The programme has 
a  solid  analytical  foundation  and  political  commitment,  it  has  adequate  resources,  a 
clear vision, objectives and targets; it also provides monitoring, continuous learning 
and improvements. However, the 7th EAP could have benefited from more strategic 
actions, that were as concrete as possible to allow for stocktaking, and from better 
prioritisation  by  having  a  limited  set  of  actions  as  opposed  to  covering  a  large 
breadth  of  EU  environment  rules.  The  7th  EAP  would  also  have  benefited  from  a 
monitoring mechanism to ensure ownership and delivery of commitments as well as 
clear and agreed indicators to measure progress in delivery of the actions.  

  Wide  stakeholder  participation  is  crucial,  both  before  an  EAP  is  launched  and 
throughout  its  life  span.  It  increases  buy-in  to  the  programme  and  the  follow-up 
measures.  The  7th  EAP  was  formulated  as  part  of  a  broad  consultation  process  and 
adopted by ordinary legislative procedure (co-decision). This resulted in greater buy-
in  from  different  stakeholders  and  decision-makers.  However,  this  level  of  active 
participation  before  the  programme  was  launched  could  have  been  maintained 
throughout the lifespan of the 7th EAP.   

  The  7th  EAP  is  largely  coherent  with  the  political  agenda  both  in  Europe  and 
globally.  However, more could have been done to integrate environmental concerns 
into  other  EU  policy  areas.  Stakeholders  agree  that  EAPs  should  be  fully  coherent 

14 See e.g. the Environmental Implementation Review 2019  

3 

 
 
                                                 
with  the  political  priorities  of  the  EU  institutions,  guaranteeing  their  political 
ownership. This could have been better achieved by linking the EAP lifespan to the 
EU  parliamentary  election  cycle  as  well  as  to  other  key  long-term  strategic 
frameworks  such  as  the  Paris  Agreement  and  the  2030  Agenda  for  Sustainable 
Development.  

III.  Methodology for the evaluation 

This  evaluation  explores  to  what  extent  the  structure,  form  and  strategic  role  of  the  agreed 
framework for action has helped ensure a better environment and climate policy in Europe. In 
doing so, we examined what constitutes a good strategy and to what extent the 7th EAP meets 
these  success  criteria.  The  overall  conclusions  are  based  on  this  analysis  coupled  with  an 
assessment of the objectives achieved and actions implemented, while taking into account the 
Commission’s Better Regulation principles15.  

To the extent possible, the evaluation considers progress made on the ground in the form of 
cleaner  air  and  water,  better  waste  management,  less  exposure  to  toxic  chemicals  etc.  – 
particularly  through  reporting  by  the  European  Environment  Agency.  However,  given  that 
environmental  progress  generally  takes  longer  than  five  years  to  materialise,  and  the 
difficulty in attributing headway to a particular EAP, the aim of this evaluation is to examine 
the added value in having a strategic framework and commonly agreed priorities to guide EU 
environmental policy-making.   

Moreover,  the  7th  EAP  is  one  of  a  number  of  environment  policy  drivers;  it  is  not  easy  to 
ascertain  how  much  each  one  has  contributed.  The  approach  to  this  evaluation  has  been  to 
ask  a  series  of  evaluation  questions  using  a  baseline  of  no  EAP.  The  7th  EAP  evaluation 
covers achievements from 2014-2018 and is based on a number of studies, consultations and 
reviews that have considered the programme’s progress to date.  

These include: 

  a  stakeholder  consultation  (an  online  public  consultation,  public  workshops  and 

targeted consultation); 

 

the Commission’s Environmental Implementation Review16; 

 

the  annual  environmental  indicator  reports  by  the  European  Environment  Agency 
(2016-2018)17;  

15 https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-making-process/planning-and-proposing-law/better-regulation-why-and-how_en  
16 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eir/index_en.htm  
17 EEA  Report  No  30/2016:  Environmental  indicator  report  2016  –  In  support  to  the  monitoring  of  the  7th  Environment 
Action Programme 2016; EEA Report No 21/2017: Environmental indicator report 2017 – In support to the monitoring of 
the 7th Environment Action Programme; EEA Report No 19/2018: Environmental indicator report 2017 – In support to the 
monitoring of the 7th Environment Action Programme 2018 

4 

 
 
                                                 
  European Parliament and Committee of the Regions reports; including the European 

Parliament’s implementation assessment of the 7th EAP (November 2017)18.  

IV.  Summary of the analysis 

Following an in-depth analysis, we can draw the following conclusions on how the 7th EAP 
has performed against the Better Regulation criteria19 for good governance.  

1.  Effectiveness:  We  have  made  some  progress  towards  achieving  the  7th  EAP 
goals.  The  7th  EAP  has  helped  provide  more  predictable,  faster  and  better  co-
ordinated action in environment policy. Predictability has helped with delivery.  

In  an  implementation  analysis  of  the  60  actions  listed  in  the  7th  EAP,  the  Commission 
concludes  that  some  progress  has  been  made  towards  achieving  the  goals  (scoring  3  on  a 
scale from 1-520). We see the most progress on actions linked to the second priority objective, 
towards a resource efficient low carbon economy. By contrast, the least progress so far is on 
actions related  to  nature  protection,  environment  and health, and integration. The  European 
Environment  Agency’s  independent  assessments 21 give  a  similar  picture:  while  significant 
progress in part, but still lagging behind in many areas. It appears unlikely that goals linked 
to  protecting  nature  will  be  met  (indicators  on  e.g.  nutrients,  biodiversity,  fresh  or  marine 
water),  and  it  is  uncertain  whether  we  will  meet  all  the  goals  related  to  environment  and 
health. The  EU  is  well on  track to achieve its 2020  target  for reductions in greenhouse  gas 
emissions  (20  %  by  2020  compared  to  1990  levels)  and  its  renewable  energy  target. 
However,  trends  in  energy  consumption  need  to  be  reversed  to  meet  the  energy  efficiency 
target for 2020.  

The 7th EAP has increased the political  ownership  of environment policy  by  systematically 
engaging  stakeholders  in  the  design  process,  followed  by  its  subsequent  agreement  with 
Council and the European Parliament. Stakeholders agree that the programme provides more 
environmental  and  climate  policy  predictability  and  facilitates  Member  States’  policy 
coordination.  However,  the  fact  that  the  adoption  of  the  7th  EAP  and  its  implementation 
period do not match the Union’s institutional cycle may have posed challenges in this regard.   

Predictability  and  extensive  political  discussions  as  part  of  the  legislative  adoption  process 
have  helped  deliver  some  actions,  such  as  the  Environmental  Implementation  Review, 
designation of small drinking water suppliers, tackling invasive alien species, and following 
up  on  the  Rio+20  agenda 22,  which  eventually  led  to  agreement  on  the  UN  Sustainable 
Development Goals. 

18 See: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2017/610998/EPRS_STU(2017)610998_EN.pdf  
19 effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, coherence and added-value 
20  1=no  progress  towards  fulfilling  the  actions,  2=limited  progress,  3=some  progress,  4=substantial  progress,  5=full 
implementation 
21 https://www.eea.europa.eu/airs  
22 https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/rio20/futurewewant  

5 

 
 
                                                 
As in most broad strategies, some envisaged actions have not been realised, such as the non-
toxic  strategy  by  2018  and  a  headline  target  for  reducing  marine  litter.  At  the  same  time, 
some  additional  actions  have  been  implemented,  such  as  the  EU  plastics  strategy  and 
extending  the  resource  efficiency  concept  to  the  circular  economy  agenda.  Overall,  the  7th 
EAP  scores  favourably  against  the  criteria  for  good  governance  and  design  of  such 
strategies23. 

2.  Efficiency:  The  7th  EAP’s  structure  and  in  particular  the  enabling  framework 
has  helped  create  synergies.  The  programme’s  focus  on  better  integration  and 
implementation  supports  policy  actions  aimed  at  delivering  cost  savings  and 
improved efficiency. 

Failing to implement environmental legislation costs the EU economy around EUR 55 billion 
each year in health costs and direct costs to the environment24. The evaluation findings point 
to several examples of cost savings in environment policy throughout the lifespan of the 7th 
EAP.  Despite  increasingly  ambitious  environmental  targets  in  many  policy  domains, 
spending on environmental protection has remained relatively constant in Europe over many 
years (around 2 % of GDP25).  

Since  the  7th  EAP  entered  into  force  in  2014,  progress  has  been  made  both  horizontally 
(between  policy  areas)  and  vertically  (between  levels  of  government)  in  increasing  the 
integration  of  environmental  concerns;  this  supports  measures  aimed  at  delivering  cost 
savings and improved efficiency.  

The  Commission  and  Member  States  have  made  efforts  to  improve  how  they  collect  and 
shares environmental information26, thus empowering individuals to find out about industrial 
emissions  or  environmental  noise,  which  reduces  the  burden  on  businesses  to  provide 
information,  and  ensures  that  administrations  at  national  and  EU  level  work  together  more 
effectively.  Member  States  could  have  been  more  transparent  in  sharing  information  they 
gather  through  evaluations  and  Better  Regulation  activities  to  allow  for  further  synergies 
across the EU. 

3.  Relevance: The 7th EAP covers the right areas, and its 2050 vision continues to 
be valid. However, adjustments will need to be made as new challenges arise.  

There  is  widespread  agreement  that  the  7th  EAP  covers  the  right  three  thematic  priority 
objectives, whilst some enabling factors could have been addressed more explicitly, such as 
digitalisation  and  environmental  governance  as  means  to  improve  the  efficiency  of  policy. 
The 7th EAP 2050 vision has been helpful and continues to be valid. 

The  overall  structure  of  a  limited  number  of  thematic  objectives,  supported  by  more 
operational  and  specific  sub-objectives  and  actions,  has  helped  achieve  the  delivery  of  the 

23 Annex 3 of the Evaluation Report summarises the findings from Trinomics study supporting the 7th EAP Evaluation 
24 COM/2012/095 final on Improving the delivery of benefits from EU environment measures: building confidence through 
better  knowledge  and  responsiveness  –  and  ongoing  study  on  the  costs  of  non-implementation  of  environmental 
legislation.  

25 https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Environmental_protection_expenditure_accounts  
26 https://ec.europa.eu/info/news/environmental-data-commission-welcomes-agreement-new-rules-reduce-red-tape-and-
increase-transparency-citizens-2018-dec-20-0_en  

6 

 
                                                 
priority  objectives.  The  principle  of  a  multi-level  EAP 27  is  supported  and  reflects  good 
practice,  but  there  are  question  marks  over  the  degree  of  complexity  or  depth,  which  also 
makes some actions hard to monitor.  

4.  Coherence:  The  7th  EAP  is  largely  coherent  with  the  environment  and  climate 

policy-making agenda, both in Europe and in global terms.  

As a strategy, the 7th EAP is internally consistent. It set the agenda and forms the backbone of 
the  Commission’s  day-to-day  work  on  the  environment.  This  applies  to  the  strategic 
management plan and regular annual activity reporting as well as to new initiatives such as 
the  Environmental  Implementation  Review.  While  the  enabling  framework  has  made  a 
positive contribution to the thematic objectives, the links to the horizontal priority objectives 
on local, regional and global challenges are less evident. 

On  coherence  with  other  policy  areas  and  political  priorities,  there  are  some  clear  (and 
welcome)  links  between  the  7th  EAP  and  the  10  Commission  priorities,  such  as  the  shared 
objective  of  tackling  climate  action  and  strengthening  the  EU’s  role  as  an  international 
player.  In  general,  they  support  each  other,  namely  the  7th  EAP  strives  to  set  out  how 
environmental  policies  can  contribute  to  sustainable  growth  and  jobs.  There  are  several 
examples of coherence between the 7th EAP and other policy areas, for instance the mention 
of  environmental  issues  (in  particular  carbon  emissions  and  air  pollution)  in  the  European 
Semester’s  Country  Report  and  work  related  to  sustainable  cities  and  the  urban  agenda.) 
However, more work needs to be done to achieve integrated policy-making.  

For  instance,  there  could  have  been  more  consideration  of  social  issues  in  the  7th  EAP, 
building on existing links between environment and social policy as regards e.g. the impact 
on vulnerable groups, jobs, social inclusion, and inequality.  

The  7th  EAP  is  largely  coherent  with  international  commitments.  Although  it  was  adopted 
nearly  two  years  before  the  UN  2030  Agenda,  it  anticipated  (and  influenced)  the  UN 
Sustainable  Development  Goals  approach  by  insisting  that  economic  and  social  well-being 
depends on a healthy natural resource base. The 7th EAP can be seen as one mechanism for 
delivering  on  the  SDGs,  although  the  latter’s  call  for  a  ‘just  transition’  could  have  been 
stressed more in the 7th EAP.  

5.  Added  value:  the  7th  EAP  has  made  environment  policy  more  effective  and 
efficient. Stakeholders welcome it and see it as a solid strategy with strong links 
to national environment strategies. 

The 7th EAP has been a “guiding light” for different stakeholders – at EU, national, and local 
levels  –  involved  in  addressing  environmental  challenges  in  the  EU.  Environment  policy 
often  establishes  a  framework  but  then  spreads  responsibility  for  its  implementation  across 
different  levels  of  government,  in  line  with  the  principle  of  subsidiarity.  This  interlinked 

27 three thematic priorities (nature, economy, health) combined with an enabling framework to tackle the main obstacles to 
achieving  the  main  goals  in  environment  policymaking,  combined  with  two  horizontal  priorities  (urban  &  international 
angle) 

7 

 
 
                                                 
nature  of  environment  policy  and  de-centralised  decision-making  partially  explains  the 
opinion of stakeholders that the 7th EAP has been valuable.  

The  7th  EAP  meets  good  practice  criteria  for  developing  a  strategy  and  is  well  linked  to 
national  environment  strategies  in  Europe.  Although  there  has  been  broad  buy-in  from 
stakeholders  on  the  structure  and  content  of  the  7th  EAP,  implementation  could  have  been 
strengthened by a stronger regular stocktaking and monitoring mechanism.  

V.  Conclusions 

The Commission finds that the 7th EAP evaluation shows that the programme has facilitated 
an important shift in policymaking — it is now more widely recognised that environmental 
protection, social benefits and sustainable economic growth go hand in hand. The programme 
has  supported  important  new  agendas  such  as  the  circular  economy  and  the  Sustainable 
Development Goals. Having a long-term vision for the first time in an EAP has been a useful 
policymaking tool — both as a complement to more short-term policy goals and as a feature 
that all stakeholders could  use as guidance for  their activities. The enabling  framework has 
directed — in a unique way — attention and resources to the main challenges we face in EU 
environment  policy:  lack  of  implementation,  information,  investment  and  integration.  The 
findings of this evaluation will inform future decisions about a successor environment action 
programme  in  line  with  Article  192(3)  of  the  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the  European 
Union28. 

28 Article 4.3  of  Decision  1386/2013/EU:  ‘In  the  light  of  that  evaluation  and  other  relevant  policy  developments,  the 
Commission  shall,  if  appropriate,  present  a  proposal  for  an  8th  EAP  in  a  timely  manner,  with  a  view  to  avoiding  a  gap 
between the 7th EAP and the 8th EAP.’ 

8