51996AR0142

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the 'Commission Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Decision on the review of the European Community Programme of policy and action in relation to the environment and sustainable development "Towards sustainability"` (97/C 34/03)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

Having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(95) 647 final - 96/0027 (COD) ();

Having regard to the Commission decision of 29 February 1996 to consult the Committee of the Regions on the matter;

Having regard to its decision of 18 July 1995 to instruct Commission 5 for Land-use Planning, Environment and Energy to draw up this Opinion;

Having regard to the Commission 5 Opinion unanimously adopted on 16 April 1996 (Rapporteur: Mr von Plottnitz) (CdR 142/96 rev.),

adopted the following Opinion by a majority vote, at its 14th Plenary Session of 18 and 19 September 1996 (meeting of 18 September).

INTRODUCTION

On 18 March 1992, the Commission adopted the European Community Programme of policy and action in relation to the environment and sustainable development (Fifth Environmental Action Programme). The programme, which covers the period up to 2000, was welcomed by the European Parliament and also found favour with the Council of Ministers.

The Action Programme (Part II, Chapter 16) stipulated that it was to be reviewed by 1995. The Commission published the findings of this review in a comprehensive Progress Report on the implementation of the Programme on 10 January 1996 (), amplified by a State of the Environment report published by the European Environment Agency on 10 November 1995.

Both reports conclude that the sustainable development strategy outlined in the Fifth Environmental Action Programme remains valid. They go on however to stress the need to ensure faster and more efficient implementation if the objectives set for the year 2000 and beyond are to be attained. What is needed, according to the reports, is renewed political commitment to take more effective action. New priorities must be set and the Programme's general statements translated into a set of pragmatic, operational tools. To this end, the Commission has submitted a proposal for a Decision on an Action Plan to the European Parliament and the Council, for adoption under the co-decision procedure pursuant to Article 189b. This Action Plan has its legal base in Article 130s(3) of the EC Treaty. The Commission hopes this will give greater legitimacy to its policy on the environment in the coming years.

The Commission's philosophy in this area largely focuses on ensuring that pressing environmental concerns are addressed by the various EU policies. (For example, environmentally-sound agricultural fertilizing practices would remove the need for a Directive on nitrates.)

The Commission stresses that it has an important role in implementing the proposals and will strive to reinforce the integration of environmental action into its own measures. At the same time, the Commission admits that its departments have not yet fully adopted this approach in their work.

GENERAL REMARKS

The COR endorses the Commission's decision to proceed under the terms of Article 189b since this gives greater legitimacy to the Action Plan. The COR also welcomes the general approach outlined in the explanatory memorandum. In its proposals, the Commission correctly analyzes existing shortcomings, focuses on the right priorities and defines the new strategies needed.

The Action Plan itself contains no specific, verifiable objectives. The COR would tend to believe that the only reason is the Action Plan remit to press ahead with the implementation of the Fifth Environmental Action Programme and that there is no intention to deliberately omit the detailed and specific objectives set out in this programme.

Regional and local authorities are directly affected by the impact of EU environment policy since they are responsible for water supply, sewage disposal, waste management, urban and regional transport policy and health protection. They expressly agree to help implement the necessary measures. The COR is therefore most anxious to stress that the Action Plan should not be limited to generalities but should determine the central tenets of the environment policy to be pursued in the years to come.

The COR Opinion therefore focuses on the specific recommendations outlined below.

Precisely because administrative responsibility for implementing EU legislation in the environment sector is often borne by local and regional authorities in the Member States, it is also important for the Commission to focus attention on the potential administrative and financial implications of EU environmental measures for these authorities.

Hence the COR would urge the Commission to make a practice of including assessments of the financial and administrative consequences for local and regional authorities as one of the factors to underpin Council Decisions in the environment sector.

Referring to its Opinion on the revision of the European Union Treaty, which calls for its own remit to be broadened, the COR would reiterate its hope that mandatory consultation will in future be extended to encompass the environment sector.

The COR also asks that, in the coming years, account be taken of the resolution on environment policy adopted by the environment ministers of Europe's regions in Valencia in November 1995, and of the accompanying Valencia charter. Recognition should also be given to the output of Habitat II and in particular the Local Agenda 21 Action Plans promoting sustainable development to be prepared by local and regional authorities.

PART I - KEY AREAS

Article 2: Integration of the environment into other policies

Environment concerns must increasingly be addressed by agriculture, transport, energy, industry and tourism policy. In specific terms, the COR makes the following points:

2.1. Priorities in agriculture

The COR notes that the conflict between environmental protection and agriculture has emerged most strongly in the fields of water and soil pollution. The impact of environmental damage such as this hits local and regional authorities hardest. In many cases, the polluters themselves can no longer be brought to book, so that it is left up to local and regional authorities to rectify the damage at considerable cost. This poses a problem for them. The COR is convinced that the point of departure for all ideas for stepping up environmental protection in agriculture should focus on linking subsidies to environmental criteria. This means that, in future, environmental requirements will be a sine qua non of price support instruments. The measures accompanying the CAP reform - especially the advocacy of environmentally sound production methods and landscape management - must remain an independent part of the promotion mechanism even after 1997.

The Common Agricultural Policy must therefore be geared towards encouraging farmers to introduce higher environmental standards and to operate within a sustainable, ecologically sound framework which can safeguard long-term income. A number of regions have successfully pursued cooperative projects to promote agricultural practices which reduce pollution. The promotion of water-saving farming methods can have a major environmental impact and should therefore be encouraged.

The planned regular reports on environmental degradation by agricultural practices must give a true overview of damage already caused across the EU, especially that caused by fertilizers, plant-protection products and erosion. Use by farmers of non-degradable plant-protection products and products which have a long-term adverse effect on the environment must be subject to a blanket ban.

In this context, the COR calls for uniform and stringent standards to be applied in the assessment of all components of plant protection agents licensed in the EU. Assessment should be conducted in line with Directive 91/414/EEC ().

The use of slurry should be subject to provisions developed in line with environmental sustainability criteria. The Directive on the use of sewage sludge (86/278/EEC) () should be tightened up to require more stringent limits than at present and to introduce limits for other pollutants in addition to those currently covered by the Directive.

However, the COR points out that when introducing measures to make European agriculture more 'ecological`, reasonable deadlines should be set and sufficient financial resources earmarked to enable farmers to switch to less intensive cultivation methods that are more respectful of the environment.

The COR urges the Commission to consider how it could encourage similar measures in third countries from which the EU imports agricultural produce. Failure to do this could not only lead to unfair competition with European farmers, but could also transfer environmental damage from the producer countries to the consumer countries.

In local and regional forestry policy, more importance should be given to promoting forest conservation and reafforestation, particularly in the south of the EU and in areas blighted by mining or in the vicinity of large urban areas. The protection of existing forest areas is to be improved in particular by fire-prevention measures.

Regional nature parks are a good example of sustainable development and should be promoted.

2.2. Priorities in transport

The COR regrets that the transport-related aspects of this Action Programme are couched in such general terms that it is not clear exactly what the Commission is intending to do. Specific provisions are only made in two areas: emissions and noise from road vehicles and aircraft, and fuel quality standards. Here too, however, more detailed information is needed.

The COR welcomes the Commission Green Paper of 20 December 1995 () on how transport pricing affects the environment. To bring a rational approach into transport demand, measures must continue to be developed, as a matter of priority, to step up the integration of external costs into transport prices. This is an essential condition if user behaviour is to be influenced to the good. Credible overall figures are the only way to make users accept Community measures entailing more stringent technical regulations, perceptible increases in minimum rates of taxes on fuels and the steps which must be taken to modernize and expand European cross-frontier transport facilities.

The next few years will see an urgent need for rules reducing average fuel consumption by newly licensed vehicles, together with a mandatory limit value for CO2. Consideration could also be given to banning vehicles not fitted with a catalytic convertor after the year 2000. The benzene content of fuel should be reduced to 1 % as quickly as possible.

The scope for mandatory curbs on hazardous emissions from aircraft should be explored. Taxing aircraft fuel and increasing the tax on other fuels would not only help conserve resources and thus protect the environment, but, as a welcome side-effect, would also make employing people cheaper if the Member States were to use the tax revenue thus accrued to reduce non-wage labour costs. The Structural and Cohesion Funds should increasingly provide financial support for expanding modern public transport and the establishment of an environmentally sound transport system in general.

2.3. Priorities in energy

The COR welcomes the general thrust of the Action Plan but once again regrets that it is not more specific. The Committee deplores the fact that it has not been possible to introduce a CO2/energy tax throughout Europe and hopes that the Commission will not drop the idea.

The COR regrets that the Commission's sponsorship practice is still too centred on expanding the capacity of energy supply facilities. Funding should increasingly be used to reduce consumption, i.e. to enhance energy efficiency.

The COR stresses the importance of locally and regionally sourced energy, particularly renewables. It would welcome a more specific statement by the Commission on promoting renewables. Moreover, competition rules which work to the disadvantage of renewables should be abolished.

2.4. Priorities in industry

The COR welcomes the priorities proposed in the industrial field since they will help strengthen companies' responsibility for the environmental impacts of their output and their products and highlight the advantages of pegging economic activity to sustainable and environmentally sound development. However, it must be ensured that, even allowing for local environmental conditions at specific geographical sites, the principle of prevention is still respected by setting emission limit values based on the best available technology.

As for the Environmental Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS), the COR feels it is counter-productive if national standards do not meet the requirements laid down under the EMAS system. The Commission is requested to use its scope for action in the procedure for recognizing national standards to ensure that the high standards of the EMAS system are not undermined.

The COR backs the Commission's desire to promote long-life products since resource consumption in the Member States is still too high. The licensing procedures to be carried out by the regions and local authorities will be simplified by the proposed approximation of legal provisions with a view to achieving coherent and comprehensive monitoring of pollution from industrial installations and by the plan to collate technical environmental legislation, which is fragmented at the moment. The COR therefore expressly welcomes the proposed collation of legal provisions.

2.5. Priorities in tourism

Environmental protection and tourism have a common, long-term interest in preserving the beauty of the countryside and protecting the natural world. The COR feels there is a need for a system of indicators and control arrangements to assess the impact of tourism activities on particular sites, not least to allow precautions to be taken.

The regions are committed to carrying out a voluntary environmental impact assessment on new large-scale plans in the field of tourism and to refitting existing facilities to meet environmental standards. Eco-friendly tourism is seen as playing a crucial role in sustainable development.

Article 3: Broadening the range of instruments

3.1. The COR supports the idea of the Commission that market instruments should increasingly be used to complement regulation as the second pillar of the EU's environment policy. The COR hopes that it will be possible to translate this approach as soon as possible into practical measures, on which the COR should be consulted for purposes of assessing the regional and local impact.

The Commission is therefore requested to intensify its efforts to introduce Europe-wide charges. The COR regrets the delays in implementing the Community Eco-label. These delays have led to a proliferation of labels in different Member States and regions, and have disenchanted industrialists about a Community scheme for which they had high hopes.

The Commission should also work towards increasingly bringing environmental issues to bear in international trade matters.

3.2. Priorities in relation to horizontal instruments

The COR calls on the Commission to begin by using its own projects as a test bed for proposed extension of the environmental impact assessment to plans and programmes. Schemes which have received financial support from the Structural and Cohesion Funds should be required to show that the money has been used exclusively to promote sustainable development.

Once the measures have been adopted, records must be kept of the environmental impact.

The COR welcomes the findings of the working group on the environment and economic and social cohesion, these should be taken into account by the Commission.

The COR backs the Commission in its plan to extend the EMAS system to areas outside industry.

3.3. Priorities in the application of EU subsidies

The COR expressly supports improving the use of the Community's financial support mechanisms as a means to promote sustainable development. The Committee advocates that recipients of funding should be obliged to show that funding has been used to benefit the environment. Violations must be subject to sanction.

Article 4: Implementation and enforcement of legislation

The COR believes it is of utmost importance that EU environment legislation is applied in a uniform way.

Since Community law is largely implemented by regional and local authorities, it is they who are most affected by the lack of harmonized provisions. Environmental rules must therefore be coordinated with precision. When environmental legislation is harmonized and consolidated, action must be taken to ensure that existing levels of protection are maintained or improved.

More realistic deadlines should be set for the incorporation of Community legislation into national law and its enforcement. (This applies, for example, to the deadline given in the new Directive on the environmental impact assessment.) Transitional arrangements must be introduced across-the-board. Legal terms must be used which are recognized in all Member States.

Publication of environmental data at regional level is just as important as the preparation of reports on experience with enforcement in order to demonstrate publicly that environmental law is being applied. The COR feels it is important that the enforcement of Community environment law is adequately monitored at national and regional levels. Joint monitoring by Community authorities and national, regional or local bodies may be an option in exceptional cases, for example, joint works inspections. The Commission would do well to make arrangements for this.

The Committee of the Regions notes that, in line with the principle of subsidiarity, it must be left up to the Member States and the regions to improve access to the courts at Member State or regional level.

Article 5: Awareness-raising

The COR backs schemes promoting improved communications and information in respect of environmental protection. The public, organizations and industry should have constant access to the best technical means available for enhancing protection of the environment. The COR also supports wide dissemination of information on new developments in projects sponsored under the LIFE scheme. However, these measures must not be funded from the LIFE appropriation; they must be paid for by other financial resources in the Commission budget.

Article 6: International cooperation

Tremendous importance is attached to international cooperation. The countries of eastern Europe in particular have considerable catching-up to do in the field of environmental protection. Greater backing should be given to joint schemes of EU local/regional authorities and their counterparts in central and eastern Europe and in the Mediterranean countries, for promoting environmental protection in these countries and curbing emigration.

The COR points out however that consideration should be given to opening up the LIFE programme to the countries of central and eastern Europe, as this is a matter of tremendous importance to them.

The COR believes that environmental aspects are not given adequate consideration in connection with international trade issues and calls on the Commission to develop detailed plans now for integrating environmental protection into this field and to bring these to bear at forthcoming WTO negotiations.

PART 2 - OTHER ISSUES TO WHICH PARTICULAR EMPHASIS WILL BE GIVEN

The Committee of the Regions welcomes the Commission's choice of five other issues to which particular emphasis must be given.

Article 7: Improving the basis for environmental policy

A particularly welcome development is the plan to develop a scientific base for evaluating environmental impacts. As for the environmental impact assessment for projects, it would be particularly important to define how interactions between individual environmental indicators are to be assessed.

It is also very important to include environmental costs and exploitation in national accounting systems.

Article 8: Sustainable production and consumption patterns

The COR supports the Commission's proposal. Unfortunately no details are given on how the Commission intends to achieve sustainable patterns of production and consumption. The Committee of the Regions suggests to the Commission that local authority laws and decisions adopted as a result of local and regional environmental situations and which aim, by raising standards, to improve the environment, should not be seen a priori as contravening the four fundamental freedoms of the EU.

Local and regional authorities are prepared to demand high standards in delivery and performance in public tendering.

Article 9: Shared responsibility and partnership

The COR welcomes the Commission's plan to promote practical ways of enhancing regional and local partnerships. It would however have liked to have seen clear concepts and ideas.

Article 10: Promotion of local and regional initiatives

The COR welcomes the Commission's intention to continue to promote local and regional initiatives. These are of prime importance for sustainable development in Europe. Measures at municipal level for the implementation of Agenda 21 are a top priority. Moreover, work is under way in conjunction with local groups and initiatives to help enhance land-use planning and develop both the urban environment and the countryside. The creativity of local initiatives can be tapped to build on existing projects and to improve information for all the sections of society involved.

Article 11: Environmental themes

11.3. Water management

The COR reiterates its comments made in the Opinion of 19 July 1995 on measures to combat the socio-economic and environmental impact of drought in southern Europe (). All the measures must focus on using water economically and effectively, but the implementing provisions should not be too strict.

The COR asks the Commission to harmonize the water Directives, which have hitherto been uncoordinated, as part of the ongoing revision of European water policy and to integrate water protection into European agricultural, industrial and production policy.

In order to safeguard regional and local interests, the following principles should be enshrined in the planned Framework Directive on water protection and applied across Europe.

Throughout Europe, the following principles should apply:

- Priority to the principle of emission control (in line with state-of-the-art technology in each individual field).

- Quality objectives should be introduced for water bodies and emissions.

- Use of water bodies throughout Europe should be subject to official approval.

- Water bodies should be looked at in terms of the overall ecological function they fulfil, including their banks, vegetation and water meadows. No further damage should be allowed to water quality.

- Inputs of hazardous substances should be avoided or reduced at source.

Enshrining these principles in the Framework Water Directive will ensure that all other water directives are amended accordingly.

The COR is concerned about the fact that the Commission is considering limiting water policy to arrangements for procedures and strategies. The Committee believes it is much more important to introduce substantive standards and limit values throughout Europe. This is the only way to achieve both uniform environmental standards on the one hand and equal terms of competition on the other. Soil protection should be treated with just the same importance as pollution control and water protection. Soil protection is of particular importance not only for securing agricultural production, but even more so in the light of problems caused, for example, by material inputs or by erosion.

11.4. Waste management

The COR welcomes the Commission's general objectives. The trend towards the cross-frontier transport of waste must be reversed. Since the regions have invested a great deal of money in high-quality disposal and processing facilities, their sole responsibility for disposal and processing must have the backing of all Member States so as both to optimize waste management by tailoring it to regional and local conditions and to ensure that cut-price disposal, often declared as 'recovery`, is kept in check. The principle whereby waste is to be disposed of and processed as near as possible to where it was generated must be observed and care must be taken to ensure that regions are in a position to provide for adequate disposal and processing facilities within their area.

In addition, the COR proposes in future removing the upper limit for the recycling of packaging waste as laid down in the Packaging Directive, and promoting the expansion of recycling capacity and market outlets, instead.

At the same time waste incineration should be clearly defined as 'disposal`.

Recovery standards should be set at a high level. In particular it is necessary to define more clearly, and update, the criteria for determining whether a disposal procedure carried out under Annexes IIA and IIB of the Framework Directive on waste is to be classed as recovery or disposal.

It is for example necessary to determine the conditions under which back-fill counts as recovery and whether the co-incineration of waste (in cement kilns, for example) can be recognized as energy recovery.

As for the Directive on landfills, more stringent provisions should be made regarding waste pre-treatment and soil sealing. Since standards for domestic waste landfills differ considerably across Europe, an unhealthy trend has emerged towards waste dumping. There should be no cut-off date for landfill operators' liability for possible long-term damage, since once a deadline of this kind has expired, the fear is that the liability will revert to the local authorities and the regions.

Responsibility for providing waste and discharge disposal plants lies with local and regional authorities; in order to streamline the use of these plants, arrangements must be set in place for recycling building waste and disposal of derelict cars, electronic scrap and batteries.

11.5. Risk management and environmental monitoring

The COR believes that the Commission proposal should also recognize the need to register and monitor the dumping of arms residues and radioactive waste both on land and in water. The proposal should also require monitoring of the effectiveness of the international conventions designed to reduce the risk of oil spills and pollution from ships on the open sea.

12. The COR calls on the European Commission to undertake the horizontal alignment of EU law systems in order to ensure the uniform enforcement of Community environmental legislation. Particular urgency is attached to the revision of the IPC Directive, the amended EIA Directive, the SEVESO Directive and the Eco-Audit Regulation. Moreover, the relationship between the Fifth Environmental Action Programme and the Commission's preparatory work on the implementation and enforcement of EU environmental law requires clarification. For example, the working document goes beyond the provisions of the Fifth Environmental Action Programme on issues such as an ombudsman, access to the courts, environmental inspectorates and the IMPEL network. The Committee of the Regions explicitly refers to the Commission's voluntary commitment to apply the strict and transparent criterion of coherence in legislation, as expressed in its report of 21 November 1995 on ways to improve the legislative process.

The COR assumes that the individual proposals on the ongoing development of the Fifth Environmental Action Programme are part of the co-decision process involving the European Parliament and the Council under Article 130s(3) of the EC Treaty. When points of detail are clarified, account should therefore be taken of the powers of the Member States and the regional and local authorities in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 3b and the second sentence of Article 4(1) of the EC Treaty. Instead of issuing constant streams of new, uncoordinated procedural rules, the European Commission should concentrate on setting minimum ecological standards.

Brussels, 18 September 1996.

The Chairman of the Committee of the Regions

Pasqual MARAGALL i MIRA

() OJ No C 140, 11. 5. 1996, p. 5.

() COM(95) 624 final.

() OJ No L 230, 19. 8. 1991, p. 1.

() OJ No L 181, 4. 7. 1986, p. 6.

() COM(95) 691 final.

() OJ No C 100, 2. 4. 1996, p. 45.