EU environmental policy:
a model to follow?
by Sylvie
Estriga and Sophie Zietek
Table of Contents
Introduction p.
4
I. An overview of the European
environmental policy p. 6
A) From 1972 until today: European initiatives to tackle environmental
problems p. 6
- “EU Environmental
Policies: A short history of the policy strategies”, By Dr. Christian Hey
www.eeb.org/publication/chapter-3.pdf
- Sixth Environment Action Programme. Environment 2010: “Our future, our choice”
http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/com/pdf/2001/en_501PC0031.pdf
- “European Ministers of the environment set themselves
target in precise figures”, by Rafaële Rivais, Le Monde
http://perec.lingway.com/lkm/Data/News/src-norm/e3/0_1-0_2-3.fd5aaabc.html
B) Europe better than the USA? p. 16
- “Environment
Transatlantic drift”, by Polly Ghazi, The Guardian
http://society.guardian.co.uk/societyguardian/story/0,7843,1072603,00.html
- “Europe
tackles environment agenda”, by Chris Morris, BBC News
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4698971.stm
II. Analysis of the weaknesses of EU
environmental policy p. 19
A)
The difficulty
in dissociating economic growth from
environmental issues
p. 19
- “In Brussels, lobbies favorable or not to
environment, balance of power and the capacity to influence the EU
environmental policy.
By Roberto Ferrigno, director of the European
Environmental Bureau, extract from the conference on “Europe and the
environment” on the 8th May 2004, p. 18
www.fne.asso.fr/PA/europe/publi/colloque_europe_environnement_actes.pdf
- “Round table with European representatives”, extract
from the conference on “Europe and the environment” on the 8th May
2004, p. 26
www.fne.asso.fr/PA/europe/publi/colloque_europe_environnement_actes.pdf
B) Weaknesses as regards the running of
the European system p. 30
1°) Loopholes in the implementation of
EU environmental law p. 30
- “EU
cracks whip over environment”, BBC News
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4672997.stm
- “Many Member States still not respecting EU
environmental law”, Euractiv,
http://www.euractiv.com/Article?tcmuri=tcm:29-129769-16&type=News
2°) The consequences of the 2004
enlargement p.
32
- “Bigger EU Could Affect Environmental
Policies”, by Maria Burke
www.chemistry.org/portal/a/c/s/1/feature_pol.html?DOC=policymakers%5Cpol_eu_affectpolicy.html
Conclusion p.
36
Lexicon p.
36
Annexes p.
39
Introduction
Damage to the environment
has been growing steadily worse in recent decades. Every year, some 2 billion
tonnes of waste are produced in the Member States and this figure is rising by
10% annually, while CO2 emissions are increasing, as is our consumption of
"dirty" energy.
Protection of the environment
is therefore one of the major challenges facing Europe. It is now recognised
that the European model of development cannot be based on the depletion of
natural resources and the deterioration of our environment.
In 1972, the European Summit in Paris aimed to turn
environment into a political reality. Nevertheless this matter will not be the
subject of any particular clauses before 1986 when three articles established
an accurate frame to the Community action: “Preserving, protecting, and
improving the environment quality, contributing to the protection of people’s
health and ensuring (securing) a cautious and rational use of resources”. Thus,
the action the Community developed over the years until the Treaty on the
European Union had already conferred the status of a policy on it. A further
step was taken with the Treaty of Amsterdam which enshrines the principle of
sustainable development as one of the European Community's aims and makes a
high degree of environmental protection one of its absolute priorities. What is
the assessment more than thirty years after the European Summit in Paris?
The sixth action programme
for the environment sets out the priorities for the European Community up to
2010. Four areas are highlighted: climate change, nature and biodiversity,
environment and health and the management of natural resources and waste.
What is more, the range of environmental instruments available has
expanded as environmental policy has developed: the Community has introduced a
financial instrument (the LIFE programme) and technical instruments:
eco-labelling, the Community system of environmental management and auditing
system, and the criteria applicable to environmental inspections in the Member
States.
The European Environment
Agency has come to play an increasingly important role in recent years. It was
set up to gather and disseminate comparable environmental data. Its role is
purely advisory but its work has become more and more crucial for the adoption
of new measures and for assessing the impact of decisions already adopted.
At present, emphasis is
being placed on diversifying environmental instruments and, in particular, on
introducing environmental taxes (the "polluter pays" principle),
environmental accounting and voluntary agreements. But, no progress can be made
unless environmental legislation is actually implemented, and effective
implementation involves introducing incentives for economic operators
(businesses and consumers).
In this research dossier,
our objective is not, of course, to present an exhaustive analysis of what is
done in the European Union in the field of the environment, which would take a
long time. It is rather to give an overview of the European Environmental
policy and to point out the main limits of this policy. How far may the
European Union be considered as a model as regards the protection of the
environment? What are the main elements which contribute to make the fight
against environment damage less efficient?
The first texts give an
overview of European environmental policy from the beginning until today
particularly through a comparison between the EU and the USA in this field.
The second part of the
research dossier will be devoted to an analysis of the weaknesses of the
European Environmental policy.
I. An overview of the European
environmental policy
A) From 1972
until today: European initiatives to tackle environmental problems
“EU Environmental Policies: A short history of the
policy strategies”, By Dr.
Christian Hey
www.eeb.org/publication/chapter-3.pdf
Source:
EEB is a federation of more than
140 citizens’ organizations based in all EU member states and most Accession
countries. These organizations range from local and national, to European and
International. The aim of the EEB is to protect and improve the environment of
Europe and to enable the citizens of Europe to play their part in achieving
that goal.
As a result, the mission of the EEB is to become an effective
instrument in visibly improving EU's environmental policies and realising
sustainable development by effectively integrating environmental objectives into
horizontal and sectoral policies of the EU, as well as ensuring compliance with
effective strategies to realise these objectives.
Summary:
The observation of the six
Environmental Action Programmes shows that there has been much more continuity
than change over the past 30 years. Through the history of environmental
policy, the author observes a gradual learning process which has lead to a more
and more integrated approach.
Environmental action by the
Community began in 1972 following on from the United Nations Conference in
Stockholm. A year later, the Commission launched the first EAP (1973-1976)
which contained many elements of today’s concept of Sustainable Development.
The first programme proposed a
gradual approach to define environmental quality objectives and focused on
water protection and waste. The second EAP (1977-1981) resumed the same ideas
with a particular attention to Nature protection. However both programmes were
quite ambitious and the periods of economic recession soured this spirit of optimism.
The Third and partially the Fourth
EAP were much more closely related to the completion of the Internal Market
with the harmonisation of environmental emissions standards. Waste avoidance,
efficient resource use and integrated environmental technologies were the main
fields of predilection for the Third EAP. The implementation was quite
satisfying because of the pressure stemming from Germany, the Netherlands and
the Scandinavian countries.
The introduction of this
legislative framework, however, could not of itself prevent deterioration of
the environment, and with the growth in public awareness of the risks posed by
global environmental problems it had become clear that concerted action at
European and international levels was absolutely essential.
The Fourth EAP is often seen as a
turning point in the EU environmental policy since environmental protection was
for the first time included in the Treaty, but also and above all because this
programme proposed a more integrated and sectoral approach and introduced new
instruments like taxes, subsidies or tradable emission permits. Sustainable
development was then perceived as a tool for improving the state of the
environment, social efficiency and competitiveness simultaneously.
The Fifth Community Action Programme on
the Environment established the principles of a European strategy of
voluntary action for the period 1992-2000 and marked the beginning of a
"horizontal" Community approach which would take into account all the
causes of pollution (industry, energy, tourism, transport, agriculture, etc.).
The Community institutions were now obliged to take into account environmental
considerations in all their other policies. However this did not find
sufficient support from the Member States and little progress was achieved. The
Member States even demanded to re-nationalise environmental policies which
according to them, imposed excessive costs on the industrial sector. Therefore,
the new instruments were rather consensus-oriented.
During the last decade of the
century some new ambitious legislation was passed parallel to continuing
attempts at deregulation. With the Cardiff Process, environmental policy
integration and sustainable development became the key elements of the EU’s
environmental policy. A set of new legislative measures emerged, the existing
legislative programmes were completed, revised or modernised, many new
environmental instruments were introduced. A « green triangle » between
the Commission, the Environmental Council and the European Parliament made of
the EU the « driver » of national environmental policies.
The Sixth EAP has been less bold
and more reluctant in setting targets and in identifying key instruments. It
identifies themes and principles and promotes cooperative approaches, following
which the Commission has become a manager of policy processes. Hence, the 6th
EAP is based on private and public professionals and adequate public
investments. Thus these cooperative arrangements are not a guarantee of
efficiency since the resources and staff are sometimes lacking in the Member
States. Beside this approach has contributed to making the European
environmental policy over-complex, which can be a barrier for its implementation
by Member States.
Résumé :
L’observation des six Programmes d’Action Environnementale montre
qu’il y a eu beaucoup plus de continuité que de changements au cours des trente
dernières années. A travers l’histoire de la politique environnementale de
l’UE, l’auteur constate que cette politique a fait l’objet d’un apprentissage
progressif qui a conduit à une approche de plus en plus intégrée.
La politique environnementale de la CE est née en 1972 suite à la
Conférence des NU à Stockholm. Un an après, la Commission lançait le premier
PAE, lequel contenait déjà de nombreux éléments relatifs au concept actuel de
Développement Durable.
Le Premier programme proposait une approche graduelle visant à définir
les objectifs de qualité environnementale avec pour principaux centres
d’intérêt la protection de l’eau et les déchets. Le second PAE reprenait les
mêmes idées avec une attention particulière portée à la protection de la
nature. Toutefois les deux programmes étaient assez ambitieux, et les périodes
de récession économique mirent un frein à l’optimisme ambiant.
Le troisième et une partie du quatrième PAE étaient davantage tournés
vers la réalisation du Marché Intérieur avec une harmonisation des standards
d’émission entre les Etats membres. Le troisième programme concernait en
particulier les déchets, l’utilisation efficace des ressources et les
écotechnologies. Grâce à la pression de l’Allemagne, des Pays-Bas et des pays
scandinaves, ce programme fut réalisé de manière satisfaisante.
L’introduction d’un cadre législatif ne pouvait pas cependant à lui
seul éviter les atteintes à l’environnement et avec la prise de conscience
croissante de la population concernant les risques globaux en matière
d’environnement, il devenait clair qu’une action concertée aux niveaux européen
et international devenait nécessaire.
Le quatrième PAE est souvent considéré comme un tournant dans la
politique environnementale de l’UE d’abord parce que ce fut la première fois
que la protection de l’environnement était explicitement évoquée dans un
traité, ensuite et surtout parce que ce programme proposait une approche
sectorielle et intégrée, et introduisait de nouveaux instruments tels que les
taxes, les subventions ou les permis à polluer. La notion de développement
durable fut alors perçue comme un instrument permettant d’améliorer
simultanément l’état de l’environnement, d’assurer une meilleure efficacité
sociale et d’accroître la compétitivité. Plusieurs facteurs externes ont
contribué à l’émergence de cette nouvelle politique : l’apparition de
nouvelles menaces mondiales, la préparation de la Conférence des NU pour le
Commerce et le Développement Economique, la volonté de voir la mise en place
d’instruments économiques, l’émergence de l’environnementalisme en Europe .
Le cinquième PAE a établi les principes d’une stratégie européenne
d’action volontaire pour la période 1992-2000 et a marqué le début d’une
approche communautaire horizontale qui prendrait en compte toutes les sources
de pollutions (industrie, énergie, tourisme, transport, agriculture etc.). Les
institutions communautaires furent dès lors obligées de prendre en compte les
considérations environnementales dans toutes les autres politiques. Toutefois
il n’a pas obtenu assez de soutien des Etats Membres si bien que peu de progrès
furent réalisés. Les Etats Membres allèrent même jusqu’à réclamer la
re-nationalisation des politiques environnementales qu’ils considéraient comme
trop coûteuses pour le secteur industriel. De fait les nouveaux outils proposés
devaient faire l’objet d’un consensus.
Au cours de la dernière décennie du Xxe siècle furent adoptées des
réglementations ambitieuses parallèlement à une tentative de dérégulation. A
travers le processus de Cardiff, le développement durable et l’intégration de
la politique environnementale sont devenus les éléments clés de la politique
européenne de l’environnement. Un ensemble de nouvelles réglementations est
apparu, les réglementations existantes ont été complétées, révisées ou
modernisées, de nombreux instruments ont été introduits. Un « triangle
vert » entre la Commission, le Conseil et le Parlement a permis de faire
de l’Union le chef d’orchestre des politiques environnementales nationales.
Le sixième programme est moins ambitieux et moins disposé à définir
des objectifs et des instruments clés. Il se contente d’identifier des thèmes
et des principes et promeut des approches coopératives dans lesquelles la
Commission devient un manager dans la réalisation de la politique
environnementale. Dès lors le 6e PAE repose sur les professionnels publics et
privés et des investissements publics suffisants. Ainsi cette approche
coopérative n’est pas une garantie d’efficacité dans la mesure où les
ressources et le personnel font parfois défaut dans certains Etats. En outre
cette approche a contribué à complexifier la politique européenne de
l’environnement ce qui peut constituer une barrière à sa mise en oeuvre par les
Etats Membres.
Commentary:
This historical overview enables to measure the
strides made by the EU in environmental protection, which was not an original
competency of Europe. Little by little, a real public policy has, nevertheless,
been drawn up through numerous regulations and directives, action programmes,
financial tools and a profuse case law at the Community Court of Justice. Thus,
the institutional triangle helped by the ECCJ, have been the actors of an
increasingly integrated environmental policy. Since Maastricht, the transversal
approach has been reinforced and the principle of subsidiarity generalised to all
policies. The Amsterdam treaty focused on the necessity of a deeper integration
of the environment into the sectoral policies, which is the result of the 1992
Rio Declaration which stipulates that « environment protection must be
part and parcel of the development process and cannot be separately considered ». The Chart for Fundamental Rights
in the article 37 also adverts this integrated approach.
However, if the means are real, the efficiency of this
model has not been proved and one can perceive a kind of loss of impetus in
European environmental policy. When the approach became more integrated, most
of Member States showed reluctance to follow the EU leadership, with the result
that the Sixth Action Plan has been less ambitious.
Besides the accumulation of sectoral policies on the
environment, sometimes inconsistent, is becoming a hindrance to their
applicability and readability. More than 700 juridical texts exist, including
more than 260 directives, which does not facilitate their implementation by Member
States. EU policies are often accused of being the result of an excessively
bureaucratic system and the European Environmental Policy is not an exception
to that.
Sixth
Environment Action Programme. Environment
2010: “Our future, our choice”
http://europa.eu.int/eurlex/en/com/pdf/2001/en_501PC0031.pdf
Source:
EUROPA is the gateway to the official websites of the European institutions. EUROPA displays all the public information and official documents produced by the European Union. EUROPA is kept up-to-date with the latest information and data — as far as possible in 20 languages.
Summary:
The programme aims at defining the priorities and
objectives of Community environmental policy up to 2010 and beyond and to
describe the measures to be taken to help implement the European Union's
sustainable development strategy. This strategy consists in using a large range
of instruments to influence the decisions of citizens or consumers, firms and
policy planners.
This programme shows a pragmatic approach: the EU wants to
improve the implementation of the existing legislation but also to integrate
the environmental policy into the other areas in which the EU and its Member
States intervene. One of the dimensions of the strategy is to target the market
and work closer with it, facilitating the changing of citizens’ behaviours. In
order to achieve these goals, the following tracks have been outlined:
ª In
order to improve the implementation of the existing legislation:
-
Support IMPEL, which is the
European Union Network for the Implementation end Enforcement of Environmental
Law. It is an informal Network of the environmental authorities of the Member
States, acceding and candidate countries of the European Union and Norway. The
European Commission is also a member of the IMPEL network and shares the
chairmanship of meetings
-
Adopt a “name, shame and fame”
strategy on the implementation of EU environmental law
-
Improve the standards of inspection
and seek initiatives to combat international crime
ª In
order to work closer with the market:
-
encouraging companies to
publish their performance and to comply with environmental requirements;
encouraging voluntary commitment
-
introducing company environmental
performance reward schemes;
ª In order to empower citizens: improve the quality of information, help consumers
to benchmark
The plan details more than a hundred or so measures to implement in four priority areas:
· climate change
· biodiversity;
· environment and health;
· sustainable management of resources and wastes
During the fourth year of operation of the Programme
and upon its completion, the Commission is to submit assessment reports to the
European Parliament and the Council.
Résumé:
Le programme
vise à définir les priorités et les objectifs de la politique européenne
de l’environnement jusqu’en 2010 et
au-delà, ainsi que de décrire les mesures à prendre pour faciliter la mise en
œuvre de la stratégie de l’UE pour le développement durable. Celle-ci consiste
en l’utilisation d’une large palette d’instruments pour influencer les
décisions des citoyens ou consommateurs, les entreprises et les décideurs
publics.
Ce
programme exprime une approche pragmatique : l’UE veut améliorer la mise
en œuvre de la législation existante mais également intégrer la politique de
l’environnement dans les autres domaines d’action de l’UE et des Etats membres.
L’une des dimensions de cette stratégie est de cibler le marché et de
travailler plus en partenariat avec lui, en facilitant le changement de
comportement des consommateurs. Pour ce faire, les voies suivantes ont été
tracées :
ª Pour
améliorer l’application des textes existants:
-
Soutenir IMPEL, le réseau de l’UE pour la mise en œuvre et
l’application du droit de l’environnement. C’est un réseau informel reliant les
autorités en charge de l’environnement dans les Etats membres, les Etats
adhérents et les candidats, ainsi que la Norvège. La Commission européenne est
également membre du réseau et en partage la présidence des réunions
-
Adopter une stratégie qui consiste à nommer, faire honte
et porter atteinte à la réputation, concernant la mise en œuvre du droit
européen de l’environnement
-
Améliorer les normes d’inspection et trouver des
initiatives pour combattre le crime transnational
Ø
Pour travailler plus en partenariat
avec le marché
-
Encourager les
entreprises à publier leurs performances et à respecter leurs obligations
environnementales, encouragement l’engagement volontaire
-
introduire des
systèmes de récompense des performances environnementales des entreprises
Ø
Pour donner du pouvoir aux citoyens: améliorer la qualité de l’information,
aider les consommateurs à comparer
Le plan détaille plus d’une centaine de
mesures à mettre en oeuvre dans quatre domaines prioritaires :
·
Le changement climatique
·
La biodiversité
·
L’environnement et la santé
·
La gestion durable des ressources et des déchets
Durant les quatre années sur lesquelles
s’étale le programme et après sa fin, la Commission doit présenter des rapports
d’évaluation au Parlement européen et
au Conseil.
Commentary
The real passage of the programme happened only in 2002.
Many things have not been implemented yet. One of the weaknesses of such a
document is that it is really unknown to the public. Anyway, what can be noted
is that the approach seems to be more pragmatic and market- oriented. The
institutions have understood that the first priority is to enforce the existing
EU environmental law. To that end, work has to be done to reach the market and
the citizens. Benefitting from the trend of “green marketing” and encouraging
it, the EU has realized the utility of voluntary engagements, of labelling and
awards to favour positive initiatives.
It is also certain that the market is reacting to the
demand of consumers; that is the reason why the EU aims at enabling them to
choose “green products”. We will see the impact of this new strategy later, but
this evolution was undoubtedly necessary, even if it might not be enough to
significantly improve the protection of the environment.
“European Ministers of the environment set themselves
target in precise figures”, by Rafaële
Rivais, Le Monde
http://perec.lingway.com/lkm/Data/News/src-norm/e3/0_1-0_2-3.fd5aaabc.html
Source:
Le Monde is a French daily evening newspaper, which is
considered the French newspaper of reference, and is generally well-respected.
It was founded by Hubert Beuve-Méry at the request of General Charles de Gaulle
after the German army was driven from Paris during World War II, and took over
the format of Le Temps, whose reputation had suffered during the Occupation.
Beuve-Méry reportedly demanded total editorial independence as the condition
for his taking on the project.
Its first
edition appeared on November 19, 1944. Le Monde has been available on the Internet
since December 19, 1995. It is the principal publication of Groupe Le Monde.
The newspaper was in the past often described as centre-left, but its editorial
line may be more appropriately described nowadays as simply moderate. Some
critics contend that its current line is, broadly speaking, biased against
Jacques Chirac.
Summary:
This
article highlights quite a rare fact: the EU Member States’ governments can
conclude more ambitious agreements than the European Commission. This happened
in March 2005, when the Ministers of the environment decided to set up, despite
the opposition of the Commission, targets in precise figures in order to
concretely tackle global warming. Why did the Commission not agree with that?
It feared to frighten the United States which it wanted to bring round to this
environmental cause.
The
Ministers of the environment’s Council invited industrialized countries to cut
their greenhouse effect gases by 15% to 30% by the year 2020, and by 60% to 80%
by the year 2050, in comparison with the level of 1990. The European Council,
that is to say the Heads of States and governments were to have decided in
March. The countries were divided; the main supporters of the initiative being
Great Britain, Germany and Sweden.
Résumé:
Cet article
met en lumière un phénomène plutôt rare : les gouvernements des Etats
membres de l’Union européenne peuvent parvenir à des accords plus ambitieux que
la Commission européenne. Cela s’est produit en mars 2005, quand les ministres
de l’environnement ont décidé de fixer des objectifs chiffrés pour lutter
concrètement contre le réchauffement de la planète. Pourquoi la Commission
désapprouvait-elle cela ? Elle craignait d’effrayer les Etats-Unis qu’elle
essayait de rallier à cette cause environnementale.
Le Conseil
des ministres de l’environnement a invité les pays industrialisés à réduire
leurs émissions de gaz à effet de serre de 15% à 30% d’ici 2020 et de 60% à 80%
d’ici 2050, en comparaison avec le niveau de 1990. Le Conseil européen,
c’est-à-dire les chefs d’Etat et de gouvernements devaient décider en mars. Les
pays étaient divisés, les principaux soutiens à cette initiative étant la
Grande-Bretagne, l’Allemagne et la Suède.
Commentary:
Indeed, the European Council confirmed these propositions and these figures, but it highlighted quite an important point: the necessary coordination with other international partners, because Europe cannot struggle alone against climate change. Another interesting thing to point out is the fact that many States often do not correctly implement EU environmental law, but principles and decisions are not enough: governments have to act. Unfortunately, what is to be observed today is that States like France will not manage to reach their goals as regards environment and greenhouse effect gas emissions.
Translation:
European Ministers of the environment set themselves
target in precise figures.
LE MONDE, 11th March 2005
Council invites industrialized countries to cut their
greenhouse effect gazes of 15 to 30% by the year 2020.
Brussels, from our European office
Would the Europeannuu Union’s Ministers of the
environment be more ecologist than the European Commission? On Thursday 10
March they have come to an agreement in order to set targets in precise figures
for the reduction of greenhouse effect gazes beyond 2012, when the Kyoto
protocol is coming to an end. The European Commission was nevertheless opposed
to that. On the 4th of February Commissioner Stavros Dimas in charge of the
environment had explained it was “premature” to set such objectives. The United
States, which the European Union is trying to bring round to the fight against
global warming, might be “frightened”. The text issued by the European
Commission had been severely criticised by the Greens at the European
Parliament, who reproach the Commission for letting the Americans dictate its
behaviour.
The Luxemburg, that presides over the European Union
during the first semester, claimed “another strategy” than the Commission’s
one: “We have always thought that if we want other people to go on board, we
have to tell clearly in which direction the ship will go”, explained Lucien
Lux, the country’s Minister of transport and of the environment, during a press
conference.
Mr Lux, who presided over the Council meeting,
affirmed that “the European Union is able to keep its leadership as regards
environment.”
COMPROMISE PHRASE
The Ministers of the environment’s Council invited
industrialized countries to cut their greenhouse effect gazes of 15% to 30% by
the year 2020, and of 60% to 80% by the year 2050, in comparison with the level
of 1990. Greenpeace is very glad about this recommendation which will allow to
limit the rising of the temperature in the world to a maximum of two degrees
Celsius over what it was at the pre-industrial era, that is to say in the 19th
century.
In order to have these ambitious objectives adopted,
the Luxembourg Presidency however had to negotiate a compromise phrase which
states that “the European Union does not prejudge new approaches (…) in a from
now on flexible and fair framework”. This sentence allows not to close the door
to the United States, who count on technological innovation to reduce the
emissions.
At the beginning, ten countries, among which Italy,
that clashed words until the last moment, but also Portugal or Poland were
agreeing with the Commission not to score targets in precise figures.
On the contrary, Great Britain, Germany and Sweden
clamour for them, the German Ministrer Jürgen Trittin having even proposed to cut
the emissions of 20 to 30% after 2020. Between the two camps, some countries
like Belgium, France or Hungary were accepting to assess the reduction, while
not wishing to go too fast. Thus, France was opposed to any reduction from 2020
because it considered industrials would need some time to adapt after Kyoto.
Nevertheless, the Minister of the environment, Serge Lepeltier, assured after
the Council, that “the absence of figures would have been a bad signal sent to
the whole world”.
It remains to be seen whether the Heads of State and
governments will follow their Ministers of the environment, when they meet for
the spring European Council, on the 22nd and 23rd of March. Mr Lux wishes so:
“We have to turn the Lisbon strategy green, he explained. We have to make
people understand that the environment and eco-technologies are not a brake on
economic growth, but a mainspring.” He claimed himself confident. “There are
99% chances that our propositions will be adopted”.
Divisions inside some camps are particularly strong.
Thus, one of the Belgian PM Guy Vehofstadt’s Councillors asked his negotiator
Evelyne Huytebroek, the region of Brussels’ Minister of the environment, in a
sharply manner to go back on her words: this eco-freak elected representative
had approved the Council’s conclusions during a press conference.
Mr Verhofstadt is an elected member of the Flemish
region. Concerned to handle the industrials fitted out around the port of
Antwerp carefully, the region refuses those targets in precise figures.
Rafaële Rivais
B) Europe better than the USA?
“Environment
Transatlantic drift”, by Polly Ghazi, The Guardian
http://society.guardian.co.uk/societyguardian/story/0,7843,1072603,00.html
Source:
The Guardian is a British newspaper published Monday
to Saturday with left-of-centre politics.
Until 1959
it was called The Manchester Guardian, reflecting its provincial origins; the
paper is still occasionally referred to by this name, especially in North America,
although it has been based in London since 1964. The Guardian has a daily circulation of around 325,000 copies
(Aug 2005), as compared to sales of 855,000 for the Daily
Telegraph, 642,000 for The Times,
and 220,000 for The Independent. The paper is sometimes known
as "The Grauniad" (coined by Private Eye),
as a result of frequent typographical errors for which it became infamous in
the era before computer typesetting.
Founded in 1821, the Guardian Unlimited web site, which is the
online presence of the newspaper, won the Best Newspaper category in the 2005 Webby Awards,
an award described by Time magazine as the online Oscar,
beating the New York Times, the Washington
Post, the Wall Street Journal and Variety. It has been the winner for six years
in a row of the British Newspaper Awards for Best Daily Newspaper on the World
Wide Web (the pcsdotNet Award). The site won an Eppy award from the US-based magazine Editor& Publisher in 2000 for the best-designed
newspaper online service.
Summary:
In the past 15 years, the EU has
passed 500 environment directives and regulations on water, waste, energy, air
quality, chemicals, radioactivity, wildlife and countryside, noise, impact
assessment, financial and economic instruments, and international conventions.
At the same time and according to the Natural Resources Defence Council (NRDC),
a leading US environmental group, more than 100 anti-environment actions were
taken by the US government in 2002 alone.
Why the deep transatlantic divide?
Eileen Claussen, director of the Pew Centre on Global Climate Change in
Washington, who headed the US team negotiating international climate change
policy in the Clinton era, suggests three reasons:
-
The European public is more
demanding than the American one.
-
Rightwing lobbies such as
industrials or ideological lobbies have been playing greater role in the US
than in Europe
-
"This US administration
is different from any other in the extent to which it has downgraded
transatlantic relationships and European concerns."
"In Europe there are
mandatory targets and movement towards strategies to combat climate change,
here there is nothing but stonewalling."
Résumé:
Durant les quinze dernières années, l’UE a pris 500 directives et
règlements sur l’environnement : l’eau, les déchets, l’énergie, la
qualité de l’air, les produits chimiques, la radioactivité, la faune, les
espaces ruraux, le bruit, les études d’impact, les instruments économiques et
financiers, les conventions internationales. Dans le même temps et selon
les Ressources Naturelles du Conseil de
la Défense, une grande organisation de défense de l’environnement, plus de cent
mesures anti-environnementales ont été prises par l’administration américaine
rien qu’en 2002.
Pourquoi cette division profonde de part et d’autre de
l’Atlantique ? Eileen Claussen, la directrice du Centre sur le changement
climatique de Washington, qui a dirigé l’équipe américaine qui a négocié la
politique de lutte contre le changement climatique du temps de Clinton, suggère
trois explications :
-
le public européen est plus exigent que le public
américain
-
les lobbies de droite tels que les industriels ou les
lobbies idéologiques on joué et jouent un plus grand rôle aux USA qu’en Europe.
-
« Cette administration américaine est différente de
toutes les autres dans le degré avec lequel elle a dévalorisé les relations
transatlantiques et les préoccupations européennes ».
« Il
y a en Europe des objectifs contraignants et un intérêt grandissant pour les
stratégies de lutte contre le changement climatique ; ici on ne trouve que
des réponses évasives ».
Commentary:
The American position as regards
environmental issues represents a real problem for the solving of such
planetary problems. Indeed, even if Europe had the best intentions in the
world, it cannot fight alone against global warming. What is more a selfish
attitude raises the problem of moral hazard which consists in the fact that if
one part does not respect the rules, everybody will have to pay for that.
The main actors that have to act now to fight against climate
change are the USA and Europe, because they are developed and have already
polluted the planet a lot. As long as they do not react significantly, it is
unlikely that any other developing region in the world will accept to change
its way of producing for ecological reasons.
“Europe tackles environment agenda”, by Chris
Morris, BBC News
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4698971.stm
Source:
BBC News Online is the BBC's news
website (http://news.bbc.co.uk/). It is
one of the most popular news websites in the UK with around 15 million visitors
every month. The website contains exhaustive international news coverage, as
well as entertainment, science, and political news. Many reports are
accompanied by audio and video from the BBC's television and radio news
services.
Summary:
In July 2005, the Commission had quite a hard debate on environmental policies: pro-business commissioners against those who claim for more regulation. The aim is quite difficult to reach: to conciliate the ambitions of economic competitiveness and ecological priorities.
Environmental policies are very expensive, but in the long-term they can save money by reducing healthcare costs. The Barroso Commission’s priority is economic growth, but it could affect the EU environmental policy and call its leadership in this area into question.
Résumé:
En
juillet 2005, la Commission a connu un débat houleux sur les politiques de
l’environnement, les Commissaires pro-marché s’opposant à ceux qui demandent
plus de réglementation. Le but est plutôt difficile à atteindre :
concilier les ambitions qui ont trait à la compétitivité économique et les
priorités environnementales.
Les
politiques de l’environnement sont très chères, mais à long terme elles peuvent
permettre de faire des économies en réduisant les coûts liés aux soins
médicaux. La priorité de la Commission Barroso est la croissance économique,
mais cela pourrait affecter la politique européenne de l’environnement et
remettre en question le leadership de l’UE dans ce domaine.
Commentary:
José Manuel Durão Barroso, the
President of the European Commission is a liberal and not an eco-freak, for
sure, he is more concerned about the market and growth than he is about
ecology. This could be a danger for EU environmental policies, in particular if
we take into account the enlargement to countries which have significant
environmental weaknesses. But what will be interesting to observe is whether the
weight of healthcare expenditure can be a mainspring for the boosting of an
ambitious environmental policy.
II. Analysis of the weaknesses of EU
environmental policy
A) The difficulty in dissociating economic
growth from environmental issues
“In Brussels, lobbies favorable or not to environment, balance of power and the capacity to influence the EU environmental policy”.
By
Roberto Ferrigno, director of the European Environmental Bureau, extract from
the conference on “Europe and the environment” on the 8th May 2004,
p. 18
www.fne.asso.fr/PA/europe/publi/colloque_europe_environnement_actes.pdf
Source:
France Nature Environnement gathers about 3000 associations which are
spread over the whole territory and which advocate in favour of the environment
and nature protection. The federation tries to favour exchanges between these
associations of national, regional, or local scope. Besides, it makes a
synthesis of all the work of expertise and monitoring done by these
associations in order to transmit it to its various partners. It supports many
projects which aim at preserving nature, sensitizing citizens or improving
environmental law.
Summary:
The text by the director of the European Environmental Bureau deals with the issue of lobbying in Brussels. This lobbying is not favourable to the environment since industrial lobbies are more numerous and powerful than the lobbies for environmental protection. For the author, this is all the more alarming that the lobbying in Brussels seems to be more opaque than it is in the USA, as the European Parliament report tends to demonstrate. But nothing has been done yet to avoid this industrial mortmain on the European institutions.
Résumé:
Le texte du directeur du Bureau Européen de
l’Environnement traite du problème du lobbying à Bruxelles. Ce lobbying n’est
pas favorable à l’environnement dans la mesure où les lobbies industriels sont
plus nombreux et plus puissants que les lobbies de défense de l’environnement.
Pour l’auteur, cela est d’autant plus alarmant que le lobbying à Bruxelles
semble être beaucoup plus opaque que celui existant aux USA, comme tend à le
démontrer un rapport du Parlement Européen. Or rien n’a encore été fait en la
matière pour éviter cette mainmise de l’industrie sur les institutions
européennes.
Commentary:
The Community level of
decision encourages lobbying which is very powerful in Brussels. If lobbying
enables citizens and more generally the private sector to take part in the
decision process, this text shows that it does not always imply a more
democratic running of the institutions. In this particular case, lobbying tends
to limit environmental progress, since the industrial lobbies are so powerful
that they manage to obtain numerous reorientations - even abandonment - of some
environmental projects.
More generally speaking, the
issue is that two legal corpuses coexist in the European system. EU
institutions pass laws concerning the single market whose aim consists in
suppressing any barrier to competition, and other laws for such or such a
particular policy. These two legal corpuses are often opposed, and the General
Direction « Competency » seems to be more powerful than the GD
« Environment ».
The work of the European
Agency for Environment has shown that the bad European results concerning the
environment were partly the consequence of its inability to uncouple economic growth from the increasing
pressures on the environment. Yet this is the only way to achieve sustainable
development. Thus, this decoupling
should be accelerated so that EU policies become increasingly efficient in the
fight against climate change and to preserve biodiversity.
Translation:
In Brussels, lobbies favorable or not to environment,
balance of power and the capacity to influence the EU environmental policy.
By Roberto Ferrigno, director of the European
Environmental Bureau
Notes and text from the European Parliament report.
The Commission itself states that
there are 10.000 lobbyists for the industrial sector that is to say one
lobbyist for each public servant of the Community: most of them are working for
the industry (individual industry or industrial roups that is to say about 1400
companies all over the world). If we compare with the USA, in Washington, there
are 16.000 lobbyists. 700 people are working for the CEFIC (European Chemical
industry council), that is to say more than for the “environment”
director-generalship which represents 500 people. We, environmental NGOs (G8)
represent about 80 people.
We analysed the surveys from the
parties. 90 to 99% of all the paper-based commentaries from depositaries of
consultations launched by Environment GD come from the industry. 80 to 99% of
the participants of meetings and auditions on environmental issues, organised
by the EU Parliament and the Commission, are representants of industrial
groups. About 2,5 years ago, in the EU Parliament, the reporter had made
invitations : there were 56 industry representants against one
associations representant who was the EEB director.
« For experienced
representatives of interest groups, those lobbying activities which begin
before a given issue has been committed to paper are the most likely to be
successful. In the Commission for example, influence is already brought to bear
on the direction of green and white papers before they have even been written
and before the issues being addressed by the Commission have been brought to
the attention of a wider public. Lobbying in the Council tends to be conducted
via national governments and also in Brussels via national permanent
representations, which describe themselves as sitting in their ivory tower and
therefore welcome lobbying by big companies in particular. In this way,
diplomats become lobbyists for lobbyists.
In the Commission, the influence
of representatives of interest groups has further increased under President
Romano Prodi. According to officials, proposals for directives have been taken
directly from industry lobbyists.
…
The practice of Members taking amendments, particularly to
legislative proposals, desired by industry and presenting them word-for-word as
their own amendments is widely reported. Some Members openly endorse such
practices and present themselves as directly expressing the concerns of industry.
…
Whilst the fact that Commissioner
Martin Bangemann moved directly into the telecommunications sector a the end of
the 1990s hit the headlines, the systematic lobbying of EU institutions by
former Commissioners or Members of Parliament is often overlooked. Former trade
Commissioner
Leon Brittan, who, as chairman of
the LOTIS High-Level Group is lobbying the British Government and his former DG
in the Commission on behalf of London as a financial center, is an example.
There are also serving Members of
Parliament who are openly actively involved with lobbyists. The requirement for
Member to declare their financial interests annually to Parliament is not
sufficient to ensure the necessary transparency. »
The UK government sent a note so
that every member of the UK Parliament
votes according to the government’s willingness.
As a conclusion, as you can see,
the situation is not good, it is necessary to maintain the pressure so that the
situation evolves.
. 
“Round table with European representatives”, extract
from the conference on “Europe and the environment” on the 8th May
2004, p.26 www.fne.asso.fr/PA/europe/publi/colloque_europe_environnement_actes.pdf
Summary:
These notes account for a debate
in the frame of a conference organised by the FNE, between three
personalities : a European representative (Alain Lipietz), a former
European parliamentarian (Marie-Noëlle Lienemann) and the national secretary of
the FNE (Josée Cambou), concerning various themes : biodiversity,
chemicals, agriculture, cohesion, transport, climate change, waste, trade, an
environmental tax system and associative life.
This text stresses the deficiencies of the EU environmental policy like the lack of agreement with the South concerning biodiversity and technology transfers. The EU is often accused of not going far enough as far as the environment is concerned, as is the case for the precautionary principle or chemicals.
Résumé:
Ces notes rendent compte d’un débat dans le cadre d’un colloque
organisé par la FNE, entre trois personnalités: un député européen (Alain
Liepietz), un ancien député européen (Marie-Noëlle Lienemann) et le secrétaire
général de la FNE, sur divers thèmes: la biodiversité, les produits chimiques,
l’agriculture, la cohésion, les transports, le changement climatique, les
déchets, le commerce, la fiscalité environnementale et la vie associative.
Ce texte met l’accent sur les lacunes de la politique européenne de
l’environnement telles que l’absence d’accord avec le Sud, en ce qui concerne
la biodiversité et les transferts de technologies. L’UE est souvent accusée de
ne pas aller assez loin en matière d’environnement, comme c’est le cas pour le
principe de précaution ou encore les produits chimiques.
Commentary:
Through this debate one may
observe that European Environmental Policy is very broad and includes various
themes, all the more that this policy has become more integrated and
transversal. Thus, all the EU policies are concerned by environmental
protection, for instance trade, agriculture or cohesion.
Since the beginning of this
policy in 1972, the EU has grappled with various problems, which contributed to
preserving simultaneously the environment and consumers’ health. This, was not
really underlined by the participants at this round table. There is no doubt
that the institutional triangle has been an active leadership, first passing a
multitude of bills, then creating various tools to enable states, companies and
consumers to contribute to environmental protection.
However, this text shows the
limits of this policy. Concerning the tax system, as long as there will be no
qualified majority voting, the European Environmental policy will remain
incomplete. As a matter of fact, the fiscal tool is essential. Without
harmonisation, firms are driven to relocate their production in countries where
there are no environmental constraints, or where derogations are authorised.
This is the case in Poland or Hungary for example, which have taken five, ten
or even fifteen years sometimes to implement some clauses. The same happens in
the fields of national and regional development, transportation, energy or
hydraulic ressources.
The low level of the
European budget (less than 1% of the Community Gross Product) does not enable
to implement all the programmes or policies, all the more that environment only
benefits from a very small part of this budget.
Besides, one of the main
problems is that of the articulation between exclusive competencies and shared
competencies. As long as the environment will remain a shared competency,
little progress will be achieved because shared competencies encounter the
following issue: how far can Europe go without undermining the subsidiarity
principle? If the Environmental policy was an exclusive competency, things
would be clearer and it would be easier to pass measures that the member states
would be obliged to enforce.
Lastly this text shows how
difficult it is for Europe to conciliate single market objectives and
environmental ones. This will be the subject of another text and analysis.
Translation:
Round table with European representatives
With
Marie-Noëlle Lienemann (SP) former European representative and candidate
Alain Lipietz European representative and candidate
Joséé Cambou, National secretary of the FNE (France Nature
Environnement)
Sitting notes
Josée
Cambou
The environmental manifesto for the 2004 European elections, co-directed by the « environmental G8 » will be downloadable from Monday on the FNE website. The environmental G8, already quoted this morning, gathers the following associations :
-
Bird life international which
the League for Birds protection is a member
-
Climate action network to
which belongs the Network Action Climate which the FNE is a member
-
The European Office for
Environment which the FNE is a member
-
Friends of Earth Europe
-
Friends of Nature
International
-
Greenpeace International
-
European Federation for
transports and environment which the FNE is a member
-
WWF Europe
This manifesto which is a call from the eight biggest environmental organisations applies to parties and political militants so that they attribute to environment the priority it deserves, so I suggest discussing on the various themes this manifesto deals with, according to your fields of competency:
-
Biodiversity
-
Chemicals, all the more
that the generalised contamination of environments is increasing and that more
and more populations confronted to this problem.
-
Agriculture (including GMO
and pesticides even if these ones belong to the previous point)
-
Cohesion, is it in favor of
environment? We could also tackle the European Funds in that point.
-
Transports
-
Climate change
-
Waste
-
Trade
We could also eventually tackle the theme of environmental tax system. At least, the FNE, in addition to the environmental issues, is interested in the aspects of associative life and besides it takes part in the CNVA (National Council for Associative Life). We would like to see the project of a European Association Status progress, what would help us for the defense of some environments. We are also interested in general interest services.
Alain Lipietz
The EU level of specialisation is scary : it is
impossible to anyone to have an overview ; the EU is a machine to produce
legislation. Thus, every representative is going to specialise on a few texts,
no one has a global prospect of all the European directives. In the same way,
the members of the G8 environment are as much specialised as them.
Concerning waste, I do not master the issue so I
prefer abstain from doing any commentary.
I take part in particular in :
-
The parlementarian groups’
life
-
The economical and
monetarian commission
-
The Delegation for South
America (particularly interested in the Andes)
-
WOIR (World Organisation
for Intelectual Rights of natives
Josée
Cambou
I suggest that we discuss by series of three themes. Let’s begin with biodiversity, agriculture and chemicals.
Alain
Lipietz
Biodiversity: I attended the
negotiations on intellectual property and biodiversity rights a lot. The
North-South relations structure biodiversity. Wealth is in the South, and
factories are in the North. North must pay South, the natives and not only the
states, in order to keep biodiversity up. We will be able to reach this
compromise only if we modify our behaviours : our agriculture must be
« clear » and must not, through excess system, distructure local
agricultures. Patents on indigenous’ plants (including the shamans) attract
multinational firms. Parliament is in favour of this position including an
important part on the right wing…as long as it does not urge on doing anything.
GMOs : Now that the GMOs
directive exists, the issue of compliance is real ; the separation between
the three channels (GMOs, normal and bio) is not technically workable because
of the twisters who will want to cheat, as it was the case for bone meal. It is
a reason for being opposed to GMOs because controls are illusory. As for the
implementation of the GMO directive it is an issue of domestic law.
REACH: publications proove that
all the chronical illnesses and cancers come from the food channel or from the
damaged environment. More than 150 000 chemicals exist which were There are
more than 150 000 chemicals that were not submitted to tests and effect on health while being unknown. One
can see that French people link health to environment. One of the elections
stakes affects this issue; we should see the equivalent of the « GMOs
saga» of the previous mandate.
CAP: Even Chirac who has always
been one of its defenders renounces the productivity concept which has
prevailed up to now.
Marie-Noëlle Lienemann
A common political culture is not
sufficient to follow the European debates ; there is an incomprehension by
the French public concerning everything happens in the EU because the directive
are directly transposed by means of regulations and consequently the debate
does not emerge at the citizens level. French people think the EU decisions are
technical whereas they are political.
As far as training, expertise and
competencies are concerned, the important role of NGO towards political parties
has to be underlined, it is necessary to create new links between political
parties and NGO.
Biodiversity : the difficulty
is to make population adhere to stakes ; we need to work on conviction. In
a way, there should be a coherence between the implementation of Natura 2000
and the remittance of European Funds, provided that the projects are in the
same well defined zone ; the risk to penalize territories refusing
economic aids to the region (for a zone 1 for example because of the late in
the field of environment in a zone 2 of the same region) is too important. How
to sanction more efficiently?
I am against patentability of
living being, which is the common heritage of humanity and which must not be
reserved for some people.
Chemicals: I was a reporter of the
directive on water. The absolute ban of some products in rejections was
difficult to obtain.
Agriculture : it will always
need a kind of political regulation, as the socialists did with the TCE
(Territory Agreement on Tapping). PAC : We all agree on the fact that it
is necessary to reorient it and to decrease productivity. I voted against GMO
in order to protect the public interest ; informing the consummer by means
of labelling is not sufficient because the free choice is illusory, above all
when there are risks for those who have a law purshase power or a insufficient
socio-culturel level to be sensitized. Transparency is illusory, it is
necessary to support farmers but not their production, the Socialist Party is
coming closer from the CNVA and the “Confédération paysanne”.
Josée
Cambou
Now let’s see three other
themes : cohesion, transport and climate change, what does not prevent you
from reacting to the previous ones.
Alain
Lipietz
Environmental liability of companies : Two kinds of law coexist inside EU. The British law said “common law” in which there is no difference between administrative law and the other laws, and that of the continent (in which the administrative law is distinguished from the civil and penal law). The directive was good, it made a synthesis between both approaches. In France, during the lawsuit of contaminated blood, the expression was: « responsible but not guilty ».
Environmental liability of
companies : Two kinds of law coexist inside EU. The British law said
“common law” in which there is no difference between administrative law and the
other laws, and that of the continent (in which the administrative law is
distinguished from the civil and penal law). The directive was good, it made a
synthesis between both approaches. In France, during the lawsuit of contaminated
blood, the expression was: « responsible but not guilty ».
In the USA there is a discharge
form signed by the GMOs salesman towards the farmer; in case of hitch, of
litigation, the farmer will charge the provider. The insurer is our ally but he
says that he cannot insure the risks which can not be assessed, particularly
when the necessary time to overhaul everything is unknown. It is the case for
example for the Gaucho and Regent insecticides. In such a mecanism, payment
should be made until the return of the bees, if they come back!
In the Directive for environment
liability, precaution supposes that the government has to act as soon as there
is a suspicious probable risk. In the project of the French Chart on
environment, precaution is defined as a probability of irreversible risks, what
is not enough and it is the reason why I am against this text.
Cohesion: it is in favour of
environment, it is necessary to transfer clean technologies to less developed
countries as quickly as possible. For example, a Tanzanian woman uses 40 times
more GEG (greenhouse effect gas) than a Japanese when she cooks; the Tanzanian
has to benefit from a better technology.
For the European Investment Bank
(?), we claim that it invests at least 22% in renewable energy. The Bank should
submit all the environmental projects to the G8 environment.
3 points are important:
-
The choice of the technics
-
The directive on the quotas
of GEG
-
Taxes
The European Parliament does not have any competency in the field of taxes and this
will not change with the current Constitutional Project. The Treaty of Nice is
the worst treaty, the only possibility is the « cross retaliation »
that is to say to put pressure on a theme which affects fiscal aspects.
Marie-Noëlle
Lienemann
Concerning
biodiversity, I wanted to add that the reorientation of fishing with a
halieutical stake is necessary, it is important.
The logic of the increasing power of insurances: the banking and insurantial powers become more and more important. We pay more and more insurances and less and less wages. What common risks do we take?
The quotas system is like a « gaz works », issues are going to grow and nobody will do anything. I think it is more important that those who have means develop new technologies in order to pollute less and that those who have less money be able therefore to access to lower prices.
Transports: the railway freight is not profitable; transport deregulation implies an increase of pollution. Freight deregulation does not offer more services, it is even the contrary, and consequently a general interest service is required. Some ideas are progressing, even the Commisarian Palacio thinks of a taxe by done kilometer and I am personaly in favour of it.
The directive on energy in
building trade is important. 40% of the GEG come from building. Tracks to do
something new exist, in the HQE (association for high environmental quality in
construction) for example. Greenpeace worked on houses with no energizing
impact.
Fear is not the best lever to make
things evolve. The concepts of harmony and best living are preferable to raise
awareness.
Josée
Cambou
Time is going fast, we have to accelerate. We agreed not to speak of waste. Themes of trade and associative life remain.
Alain
Lipietz
I suggest conferring my website for more information http://www.lipietz.net
International trade: The European Parliament does not
have any control and Pascal Lamy defends the big firms’ interests, in any case
it is my view point.
Associations: All the associations, including the more radical ones, have to be listened to, it is essential for us to take their advice. Concerning a European status for associations: statuses are different according to the countries. For the associations I did a work with the CNVA further to a government request: we have to determine a frame with an autodeclarative formula for the level of subsidies and of taxes and social contributions exemptions, peers concede the label, in case of litigation, the chief administrator can intervene.
Marie-Noëlle
Lienemann
As for the associations, I am in favour of flexibility
concerning the 1901 law and I am in favour of the emergence of a European
association.
I am rather in favour of
regulation by law than by financial arbitration.
When a directive is not complied, there is distortion to competitiveness. A European inspection with a European inspection corps is necessary.
As for the International
Trade, Pascal Lamy is going further to his mandate and he promotes a terrible
liberalism ! Co-decision in the mandate in the WTO has to be
obtained. 
B) Weaknesses as
regards the running of the European system
1°) Loopholes in the implementation of EU environmental law
“EU
cracks whip over environment”, BBC Newshttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4672997.stm
and “Many Member States still not respecting EU
environmental law”, Euractiv, http://www.euractiv.com/Article?tcmuri=tcm:29-129769-16&type=News
Source:
BBC News Online is the BBC's news website. It is one of the most popular news websites in the UK with around 15 million visitors every month. The website contains exhaustive international news coverage, as well as entertainment, science, and political news. Many reports are accompanied by audio and video from the BBC's television and radio news services.
EurActiv.com is the
independent media portal fully dedicated to EU affairs. It has an original
business model, based on five elements (corporate sponsoring, EurActor
membership, advertising, EU projects, and content syndication). It is well
funded and the content usage is free. The EurActiv web portal is firmly
established as the favourite online platform for Brussels and national professionals
in EU policies. It brings together journalistic independence with transparency
and practical efficiency, complementing the existing EU media and institutional
websites.
This media enjoys extensive
political, NGO and press support. EurActiv's coverage of EU affairs
concentrates on policy positions by EU Actors trying to influence policies already in the
pre-legislative phase, before a Commission proposal. The aim of the media
is to deepen the debates, both within and outside the institutions as well as upstream of
decisions. EurActiv also
contributes to reach people outside Brussels and to bring other EU Actors into a network thanks to its French /English /German
versions and with its partners in Central and Eastern Europe.
Summary:
The first text deals with a survey which showed that
in 2003 many states encountered difficulty in transposing EU environmental law,
particularly the oldest Member-States like France, Greece, Ireland, Italy and
Spain. The environment
sector gathered over a third
of all complaints and ongoing infringement cases in 2003.
The
second text focuses on a warning issued by the Commission to several
Member-States for failing to comply with environmental law, particularly
environmental impact assessment and the disposal concerning electrical waste.
Résumé:
Le premier texte concerne une enquête
qui a montré qu’en 2003, de nombreux Etats rencontraient des difficultés pour
transposer la réglementation européenne sur l’environnement, notamment les
Etats Membres les plus anciens comme la France, la Grèce, l’Irlande, l’Italie
et l’Espagne. Le secteur de l’environnement rassemble plus d’un tiers des
plaintes et infractions en 2003.
Le second texte met l’accent sur un
avertissement de la Commission à différents Etats Membres pour ne pas se
conformer au droit de l’environnement, en particulier l’évaluation des impacts
sur l’environnement et la disposition sur les déchets électroniques.
Commentary:
Both texts mark the limits of the
EU’s clout concerning environmental legislation showing that many Member States
do not respect European environmental law. Either they do not even transpose
the regulations, or if they do so, it is in the wrong way. Can this situation
change ?
That is far from being
self-evident, since the risks taken by the lawbreakers are small or even
non-existent. A formal notice from the Commission has no influence on the
perception by public opinion and thus on elected representatives. A real
conviction would be more difficult to hide, but it is so seldom that in that
case too, the risk is really weak. As for the funding credit line, it has only
been used twice over a period of fifteen years, against Greece and Spain !
The comparison of both texts illustrates this weakness. The
second text, dating from July 2005, blames the same countries as the first one
did in 2003, which means that the European system does not work well and
consequently the European Model of Environment Policy can not be highly
efficient. As a consequence, even supposing that the European Environment
Policy is adapted to the necessary protection of the environment, anyway it
becomes limited if the reluctant Member States are not sufficiently constrained
to comply with the European law.
For this reason, the Commission has
tried to develop other tools to introduce soft law principles, with an outlook
inspired by soft law. The first ones were the Action Programmes which gives a
basis to pass decisions later. But they are rarely implemented. For example the
Fifth Action Programme aimed at stabilizing the production of municipal waste
at 300kg per habitant per year. Yet it is increasing every year (7% since 1992)
and currently it has reached 430kg! The second tool consists in incitation. But
the budget in that sense is too small: only 640 million euros were budgeted for
the programme LIFE 2000-2004, against 40 billion for the agricultural sector!
Other funds (structural and cohesion funds) are supposed to help with
environmental preservation but numerous associations deplore the fact that
these funds are often used to the detriment of the environment. Lastly, tools
like Eco-Label or Eco-Audit are not meeting a real success. For example, only
3500 companies have been registered under the Eco-Audit for the last 10 years.
2°) The consequences of the 2004 enlargement
“Bigger EU Could
Affect Environmental Policies”, by Maria Burke
www.chemistry.org/portal/a/c/s/1/feature_pol.html?DOC=policymakers%5Cpol_eu_affectpolicy.html
Source:
Chemistry.org
is the website of American chemical companies. But this article first appeared in the Online News
section of Environmental Science & Technology.
The American
Chemical Society is a self-governed individual membership organization that
consists of more than 158,000 members at all degree levels and in all fields of
chemistry. The organization provides opportunities for peer interaction and
career development, regardless of professional or scientific interests. One
might think that that kind of organization would tend to prefer a less
ambitious EU environmental policy, so that the pressure exerted on the US is
less important. Indeed, environmental legislation implies constraints for
industrialists in the chemistry sector.
Environmental
Science & Technology (http://pubs.acs.org) reports twice monthly on aspects
of the environment and its protection by scientific, engineering, and political
means.
Summary:
This article
highlights the risk that the accession of the 10 new MS could pull European ambitions
regarding the environment downwards. Indeed, these States are characterized by
considerable backwardness in this field, in comparison with the 15 former MS
standards. The new MS could block European decisions tending to create tougher
environmental legislation, if they team together. They could also tend to
favour more market-based approaches.
There is no
doubt that many new MS have made considerable efforts to comply with European
norms, but according to new MS nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), inadequate
funding and a lack of administrative resources are the biggest impediments to
bringing about environmental and legal change. Complying with EU environmental
law will require significant investment, but the EU will not provide enough
environmental aid and it remains to be seen from where the rest will come.
Résumé:
Cet article souligne le risque induit par l’adhésion des
dix nouveaux Etats membres de l’UE en mai 2005, à savoir la possibilité que ces
derniers soient enclins à tirer vers le bas les ambitions européennes en
matière de protection de l’environnement. En effet, ces Etats présentent un
important retard dans ce domaine, par rapport aux standards de quinze anciens
Etats membres. Les nouveaux arrivants pourraient, s’ils s’alliaient, bloquer
des décisions européennes tendant à rendre la législation plus restrictive et
exigeante. Ils pourraient également avoir tendance à préférer et à encourager
des approches plutôt fondées sur le marché que sur des normes contraignantes et
contrôlées.
Il ne fait aucun doute que beaucoup de ces Etats ont
accompli des efforts considérables pour se soumettre aux normes européennes,
mais selon des ONG de ces pays, un financement inadapté et le manque de
ressources administratives sont les principaux obstacles aux réformes
législatives et environnementales. Des investissements importants seront
nécessaires pour que les nouveaux entrants adaptent leur législation et leur
économie aux normes européennes, mais l’Union ne financera pas tout. Reste donc
à savoir d’où viendront le reste des financements.
Commentary:
This
trend that might characterize the new MS positions regarding environmental
issues must be quite good news for industrialists and US industry in
particular. Indeed, the pressure exerted on the United States would be less
embarrassing, if the European Union itself had not been able to improve its own
environmental legislation as fast as it has.
It
is said in the text that the EU is apparently focusing on the implementation of
existing legislation, and that is quite true in fact
Translation:
Une
Europe élargie pourrait avoir des conséquences sur les politiques
environnementales
Maria
Burke
Une élargie va-t-elle continuer à mener des politiques
environnementales agressives ? Avec dix nouveaux Etats membres – dont
beaucoup ont d’importants problèmes environnementaux – rejoignant l’UE, les
experts s’attendent à des conséquences sur la politique. Certains prédisent que
la politique européenne de l’environnement va stagner tandis que les nouveaux
Etats membres se démènent pour appliquer et respecter la législation la plus
stricte de l’Europe occidentale. D’autres disent que les futures politiques
vont tendre vers des approches plus fondées sur le marché plutôt que sur un
système désuet de lois imposées et de contrôles. Les derniers nouveaux membres
arrivés en mai dernier et portant le total des Etats membres à 25 sont Chypre,
la République tchèque, l’Estonie, la Hongrie, la Lettonie, la Lituanie, Malte,
la Pologne, la Slovaquie et la Slovénie. « On ne peut pas dire que les
nouveaux Etats aient une tradition de gestion environnementale, et ils
pourraient tirer les actuels Etats membres vers le bas », explique Miranda
Schreurs, spécialiste des sciences politiques à l’Université du Maryland.
« Pour les cinq à dix prochaines années, l’UE va probablement se
concentrer sur l’application de la législation actuelle plutôt que de chercher
à aller de l’avant avec des normes plus progressistes », ajoute-t-elle.
Malgré des progrès spectaculaires dans la qualité de l’eau de l’air de
nombreux Etats de l’ancien bloc soviétique en Europe centrale et orientale – de
nombreux s’expliquant par des réformes économiques –, des problèmes
substantiels demeurent, en particulier en République tchèque et en Pologne. Par
exemple, tandis que ces Etats se sont éloignés des équipements industriels et
énergétiques hautement polluants, ils dépendent encore fortement du
charbon. Et les Etats baltiques que sont l’Estonie, la Lettonie et la
Lituanie manquent de systèmes de collecte des déchets et connaissent des
décharges illégales.
Andrew Farmer, de l’Institut pour la Politique Européenne de
l’Environnement de Londres suggère que les nouveaux Etats pourraient suspendre
les avancées politiques. « Il est peu probable que les nouveaux Etats membres
s’engagent pour de nouvelles législations ou soient des pilotes majeurs de la
future législation, et ils pourraient faire traîner et reculer toute
l’Union », explique Farmer. Il souligne que si les nouveaux Etats se
serraient les coudes ou s’alliaient à de petits pays comme le Portugal, ils
pourraient bloquer une décision au Conseil des Ministres de l’environnement,
l’arbitre final dans la procédure législative. « Cela donne à ces pays un
pouvoir de négociation très fort s’ils se mettent tous d’accord ».
Il apparaît également clair que l’UE élargie va davantage épouser des
approches fondées sur le marché plutôt que sur des normes et des dates
butoirs, explique Jacqueline Karas de
l’Institut Royal des Affaires Etrangères à New York. Les nouveaux Etats membres
ont tendance à être favorable aux affaires et anti-régulation en raison de leur
passé communiste, suscitant une voix plus forte en faveur des mécanismes fondés
sur le marché dans de nouveaux domaines tels que la qualité de l’eau,
prédit-elle. Ces Etats entrants pourraient aussi constituer un bon banc d’essai
pour de nouveaux instruments de la politique, ajoute Mme Schreurs, tels que les
accords volontaires pour l’écolabel et les mécanismes de marché comme les
échanges de droits d’émission et les taxes énergétiques.
Si l’on n’est pas attentif à son approche, l’élargissement de l’UE
devrait apporter des bénéfices environnements majeurs aux nouveaux Etats
membres. Les pays adhérents, dont certains ont des rapports de protection de
l’environnement très pauvres, ont accepté des normes européennes strictes et
doivent faire adopter les lois nationales mettant en œuvre les directives de
l’UE. « Autrement,ces Etats, avec leurs niveaux de développement
économique, n’auraient pas du adopter ce type de législations », dit
Schreurs.
Tous les nouveaux Etats membres ont soumis pas à pas des plans de mise
en œuvre et doivent présenter des rapports sur leurs progrès à la Commission
européenne. Les officiels que les pays adhérents sont pour la plupart sur la
voie pour appliquer la législation environnementale de l’UE. Cependant, les
fonctionnaires européens constatent que certains pays, qu’ils ne nommeront pas,
ont besoin d’effectuer un « travail significatif » sur la gestion des
déchets.
En attendant, l’UE a accepté d’accorder à tous les Etats membres une
transition pour la mise en œuvre des textes les plus stricts, principalement
pour la réglementation sur l’eau, les déchets et la pollution industrielle. Ces
plans de transition diffèrent d’un pays à l’autre et incluent des objectifs
intermédiaires juridiquement contraignants et des objectifs négociables ainsi
que sur des dates butoirs. Par exemple, la Lettonie et la Hongrie ont jusqu’à
2015 pour satisfaire aux normes de traitement des eaux usées, l’Estonie et la Lituanie
doivent s’adapter aux normes de pollution de l’air dans les grands terrains de
combustion avant 2015, et Chypre et la République tchèque sont supposés remplir
les objectifs de rattrapage concernant le conditionnement des déchets en 2005.
La Commission appliquera ses procédures normales d’imposition si les Etats ne
se soumettent pas.
Karas a été surpris du niveau de progrès atteint jusqu’alors et dit
que les gouvernements de plusieurs pays sont en train de faire de gros efforts
pour essayer de transposer les lois européennes dans leurs droits nationaux.
Par exemple la Pologne a adopté une loi sur la protection de l’environnement en
2001 et a fixé des objectifs pour la part de ses énergies renouvelables de 0,7%
de l’ensemble des sources d’énergie en 2001 à 7,5% d’ici 2010. « Mais,
ajoute-t-elle, reste à savoir à quelle vitesse [les réglementations
européennes] vont se produire ».
Satisfaire aux exigences du droit européen de l’environnement va
nécessiter des investissements importants. La Commission européenne estime que
cela coûtera aux dix Etats membres de 80 à 110 milliards de d’euros, soit en
moyenne 2 à 3% du produit national brut communautaire dans les prochaines années. L’UE a fourni des aides
environnementales depuis 2000 et a triplé leur montant en mai pour atteindre 8
milliards d’euros, ce qui représente environ à 10% des besoins d’investissement
des nouveaux Etats membres jusqu’en 2006. D’autres sources de financement
incluent des institutions internationales telles que la Banque Européenne
d’Investissement, des groupes privés, les prélèvements sur la consommation tels
que les redevances sur l’eau et les taxes.
Toutefois, les dépenses actuelles sont généralement en dessous de
l’objectif chiffré. Par exemple, Pologne, qui est le pays le plus peuplé des
nouveaux Etats membres, dépense actuellement environ le quart de l’ancienne
moyenne de ce que dépensait l’UE à 25 pour la protection de l’environnement,
dit Mme Schreurs. « Le gouvernement polonais a estimé qu’il doit dépenser
40 milliards d’euros – l’équivalent du budget total d’une année – dans les
prochaines années pour satisfaire aux standards européens », souligne Mme
Schreurs. « L’UE financera peut-être 6 milliards. Reste la grande question
de savoir d’où viendra le reste. Le marché des droits d’émission aidera, les
taxes sur les produits pétroliers aideront, mais ils ne front qu’un petit trou.
Cela explique en partie le scepticisme autour de la capacité des nouveaux Etats
membres à atteindre les standards de l’UE.
La plupart des organismes d’aide non gouvernementaux sont d’accord. Selon un tour d’horizon des organisations non gouvernementales dans les nouveaux Etats membres effectué par le Bureau Européen pour l’Environnement (BEE), une organisation qui chapeaute des ONG de protection de l’environnement, un financement inadapté et un manque de ressources administratives constituent les plus gros obstacles aux réformes environnementales et légales. Mara Silina, du BEE, affirme que le secteur public ne peut pas rivaliser avec l’industrie quand on en vient aux salaires pour les personnels talentueux nécessaires pour construire les ministères nécessaires, les agences de contrôle et les inspecteurs. « Cela constitue un grave problème que les agences de l’environnement et les ministères soient souvent petits et faibles », alerte Mme Schreurs. « Un petit nombre de bureaucrates doivent apprendre un droit abondant et essayer de le mettre en œuvre sans les ressources appropriées. »
Conclusion:
The sector of the environment represented in 2003, more than a third of
the total amount of the complaints and cases of offences in suits (trials)
concerning violation of European legislation.
On the basis of the reports of the European Environment Agency (EEA),
three conclusions emerge. First, the European institutions only obtain real
successes when there are technical solutions, but do not manage to change the
citizens’ behaviour. Secondly, the economic tool is not or almost not used:
harmful state subsidies are still very widespread, especially in the transport,
energy and agriculture sectors. Finally, the EU is still not in a position
which might enables the decoupling of economic growth from the increasing
pressures on the environment.
These conclusions, which are nothing less than mixed, are the consequence
of various elements:
-
the
accumulation of texts which is becoming a hindrance to their implementation
(more than 700 legal texts and 260 directives),
-
the lack of harmonisation when these texts
are transposed into national law,
-
the
exception which some fields are gaining (like tax systems, spatial planning,
energy), where policy-making requires an unanimous vote,
-
the
seeking for a consensus in which nobody should appear to be a loser when the
Council votes at the simple majority,
-
-
the democratic deficit (few parliamentary commissions of enquiry, no
commissioner to verify the reality of the policies implemented...),
-
the difficulty in interesting citizens.
Does this list of weaknesses, which is non exhaustive, of necessity have
to lead to a general rejection of EU environmental policy? It does not, for
sure.
Environmental strategy is totally anchored at the core of European
policy-making. Today for example, it would be impossible for somebody like
Alain Madelin to question the policies of control over energy consumption, as
he did in the eighties. Therefore it seems difficult to renounce to public
policies concerning the environment. What is more, Europe enables national
ministers for the environment, who are not very influential, to be legitimized
in their will to fight against pollution in various fields, despite the
pressure of lobbies. As a matter of fact, Brussels appears as an a
“whistle-blower” which enables to surpass national antagonisms and to escape to
some extent from the power of the lobbies.
The future of the EU regarding the environment is also uncertain, since
the Commission estimated that 80 to 120 billion euros would be necessary for
the new Member States to be able to comply with EU environmental requirements.
But an increase in the budget in that direction can hardly be said to have been
planned yet...
Lexicon:
To alter weather
patterns : modifier les climats
Antwerp: Anvers
To assess the health risks : mesurer les risques pour
la santé
Auto exhausts : gaz d’échappement
An awareness-builing campaign : une campagne de
sensibilisation
To be on track : être sur
la bonne voie
Biodegradable : biodégradable
Biofuel : biocarburant
Brake: frein
To bring round to: rallier à
Carbon dioxide : le dioxyde de carbone
Carbon monoxide : le gaz carbonique
A chemical : un produit chimique
Chemical industries : les industries chimiques
clash words: ferrailler
Conservation : la défense de l’environnement
To curb waste : réduire le gaspillage
An Earth Summit : un sommet de la Terre
eco-freak: écolo
Ecological : écologiste
The ecological balance : l’équilibre écologique
Ecology : l’écologie
An ecosystem : un écosystème
Environmental damage : les dégâts environnementaux
Environmental degradation : la détérioration de
l’environnement
environmental policy : une politique écologique
Environmental protection : la protection de
l’environnement
An environmentalist : un défenseur de l’environnement
The « enviros » : les écolos
The fauna : la faune
The flora : la flore
Gas (USA) / petrol (UK) : essence
Gas/gases : le (s) gaz
Global warming :
réchauffement climatique
A green consumer : un consommateur écologique
A green product : un éco-produit
The greenhouse effect : l’effet de serre
The greenhouse effect gazes: gaz
à effet de serre
To handle carefully: ménager
To heighten awareness : accroître la prise de
conscience
Household waste : les ordures ménagères
A human habitat : un biotope humain
in a sharply manner: d’une
manière vive, brusque
Industrial waste : les déchets industriels
Moral hazard : aléa
new States have less than: on ne
peut pas dire que les nouveaux Etats aient
a nuclear power
plant : une centrale nucléaire
Objectives in precise figures :
objectifs chiffrés.
The ozone layer : la couche d’ozone
Petroleum : le pétrole
Plastic packaging : le conditionnement en plastique
Plastics : le plastique
polluant / a contaminant : un polluant
to pollute : polluer
a polluter : un pollueur
a power plant : une centrale électrique
Preservation : la sauvegarde
To preserve : protéger
To recycle : recycler
To release CO² :
libérer du CO²
Remains to be seen : reste à savoir
To run on clean fuels : consommer des carburants
propres
Sewage : les eaux usées
To sort garbage (into) : trier les déchets
A species : une espèce
To stonewall : jouer très prudemment, donner des réponses
évasives.
To stop deforestation : arrêter le déboisement
Testing ground : banc
d’essai
Waste : les déchets
Waste disposal : l’élimination des déchets
The wilderness : la
nature sauvage
Annexes
III.
EU Environmental Policies: A short history
of the policy strategies
By
Dr. Christian Hey3
18 III.1 Introduction
18 III.2 An idealistic start 1973 - 1982
19 III.3 Towards the Internal Market 1982 -
1987
20 III.4 Towards environmental policy
integration 1987 – 1992
(the Fourth EAP)
23 III.5 Roll-Back 1992 - 1995
25 III.6 1997 -2003: The last wave of
environmental regulation?
26 III.7 The 6th EAP and the Thematic
Strategies
27 III.8 Outlook
3 Secretary General of German Advisory
Council on the Environment
E U E n v i r o n m e n t a l P o l i c y H a n d b o o k
18
4 in: OJ C112/1 from 20.12.1973
III.1 Introduction
Many issues under discussion today have a long history. Some issues
which were already on the
agenda during the 70s have recently returned to the forefront. A short
history of policy strategies
over the last 20 years therefore offers an insight into the current
situation.
This analysis takes as its starting point the six Environmental Action
Programmes. These are medium-
term programmes and strategic policy documents which reflect the
fundamental elements of
contemporary environmental thinking and problem perceptions, as well as
strategic policy orientation.
New action programmes often reflect a change in the general political
climate of their
time.
But they are not binding programmes for action - even if they contain
lists of planned activities.
A short history of the Environmental Action Programmes puts the more specific
industry legislation
into the wider context of environmental policy strategies.
The following analysis of the six EAPs suggests, that in terms of
principles, there has been much
more continuity than change over the last 30 years. Yet in terms of more
specific policy actions,
one can observe a gradual learning process. It starts with hot-spot
management, and gradually
moves towards a more holistic and integrated approach, looking for
synergies between business
and environmental goals. Progress however has never been linear and
European environmental
policies over the last 30 years have always been very sensitive to wider
economic and political
cycles.
III.2 An idealistic start 1973 - 1982
The EC started its environmental policies with an ambitious programme.
This contained many
elements of today’s ideas on “Sustainable Development”. After the first
United Nations
Conference on the Environment in Stockholm in 1972 and growing public
and scientific concerns
on the limits to growth, the Commission became active in initiating an
original Community policy.
On the basis of European Council commitments in 1972 to establish a
Community environmental
policy, the first EAP was decided upon in November 19734.
This programme already established the argument that economic
development, prosperity and
the protection of the environment are mutually interdependent. It was
argued, that “the protection
of the environment belongs to the essential tasks of the Community”
(ibid.). Among the
most important objectives were:
◗ the prevention, reduction and containment of environmental
damage
◗ the conservation of an ecological equilibrium
◗ the rational use of natural resources
19
I I I . E U E n v i r o n m e n t a l Po l i c i e s : A s h o r t h i s
t o r y o f t h e p o l i c y s t r a t e g i e s
The First EAP emphasised the need for a comprehensive assessment of the
impacts of other policies,
in an effort to avoid damaging activities. In this way, the First EAP
already contained, in an
embryonic form, many of the later ideas behind “sustainable
development”. Environmental policies
in the EC originally had their own environmental justification, without
this being subordinated
to internal market objectives.
These ambitious targets were formulated in a spirit of optimism as regards
the feasibility of far
reaching policy change, which became frustrated during the following
decades of environmental
policy making.
Yet the first steps, as proposed by the First EAP, were more “down to
earth”. It proposed a gradual
approach to defining environmental quality objectives. This started with
research activities
on the nuisance of pollutants, on the causes of pollution and on
criteria for environmental objectives.
At the end of this process a definition of product and environmental
quality norms was put
forward. The approach was based on the protection of single
environmental media (water, air,
soil etc.). The First EAP devoted most of its attention to water
protection and waste, but it also
contained a sectoral approach, with special reference to agriculture and
spatial planning. Also
mentioned were preparatory activities for emissions control.
The Second EAP (1977 - 1981)5 was essentially a follow up to the first in terms of approach and
objective, with simply a greater range of problems to be dealt with.
Nature Protection received
special attention.
In terms of a practical approach the First and the Second Programmes
(1973-1981) advocated
quality values for water and air. The quality objectives for drinking
water were very strict – those
for air could be achieved without strong policy intervention.
The evaluation of the practical success of this first period of
environmental policy making is, in
general, relatively critical. Initial enthusiasm declined considerably
during the periods of economic
recession (1975 – 1978, 1981 -1983). Nevertheless a number of framework
directives, especially
for water and waste, were decided during this period.
III.3 Towards the Internal Market 1982 - 1987
The Third EAP (1982 - 1986)6 and partially the Fourth (1987 - 1992) reflect a considerable change
in policy approach, being much more closely related to the completion of
the Internal Market
than their predecessors.
The Third EAP emphasised the potential risks and benefits of
environmental policies to the
Internal Market and issue linkage between the internal market and
environmental policies
became a key driver for programming and activities. Environmental
emissions standards needed
to be harmonised to avoid distortions to industry competitiveness.
Product regulations had to be
5 In: OJ C 139/1 from 13.6.1977
6 In: OJ C 46/1 from 17.2.1983; Fourth EAP
in: OJ C328/1 from 7.12. 1987.
E U E n v i r o n m e n t a l P o l i c y H a n d b o o k
20
harmonised to avoid non-tariff barriers emanating from different
national product norms. On the
other hand, the third EAP emphasised the economic benefits, especially
the positive employment
effects to be gained from environmental policies.
The environmental policy approach was also modified. The Third EAP
shifted from a quality
approach to an emission-oriented approach. It proposed formulating
emission limit values for
stationary, as well as mobile, sources. But beyond this new approach, in
order to introduce better
filter technologies for the reduction of emissions at the “end of the
pipe”, the objectives of
the first and second EAPs were restated. The Third EAP also made
positive reference to the first
global strategy for “Sustainable Development” formulated by the IUCN in
1980. Waste avoidance,
efficient resource use and integrated environmental technologies were
some of the objectives of
the third EAP.
The practice of environmental policies during the eighties was
particularly concerned with cleanair
policies, and noise and risk management for industrial sites.
This policy change came about partially as a result of strong German
pressure. As a result of the
discussion on the ‘Waldsterben’, the economic forest interests involved
and emerging pressure
from the Green Party, the German government decided on ambitious
clean-air policies requiring
emission reductions from large combustion plants and cars. During the
1980s, to avoid distortions
in competition, German industries and the government successfully
lobbied for a harmonised
European emissions control policy. Other pioneering countries were also
successful in
exporting national policy innovations to EU level: a tradition of
strategic environmental planning
from the Netherlands, a culture of participatory environmental policies
from many of the smaller
countries, a focus on setting environmental quality objectives from the
UK and more recently
the reform of chemicals policies in Scandinavian countries.
III.4 Towards environmental policy
integration 1987 – 1992 (the Fourth EAP)
1987 is often seen as a turning point in EC environmental policy, since
environmental protection
received its own chapter in the Treaty. Yet in terms of approach and
practice, one finds much
more continuity than change, with the Treaty codifying many principles,
which can already be
found in earlier policy documents. As with the Third EAP, the economics
of European environmental
policies remained central to the thinking behind the Fourth EAP, with an
assumption of
harmony between the objectives of the internal market and environmental
protection. The harmonisation
of environmental standards was to take place at a “high level”. If this
condition were
met, national measures, which might distort free trade, would not be
necessary. Harmonisation
at a high level was justified as an essential component of the competitiveness
of European industries
in global markets.
The Fourth EAP marks a further change in the approach to environmental
policy. The shortcomings
of the earlier approaches (i.e. quality policy, emissions orientation)
were recognised. An
21
I I I . E U E n v i r o n m e n t a l Po l i c i e s : A s h o r t h i s
t o r y o f t h e p o l i c y s t r a t e g i e s
approach which relied entirely on environmental quality objectives was
recognised as shifting
problems to other media or other regions (the case of long range
transboundary pollution).
Likewise, it was acknowledged that, an approach which focussed on
emission controls for stationary
sources was unlikely to achieve certain ecosystem or health based
quality objectives. The
Fourth EAP instead proposed a more integrated approach. For the first
time, environmental protection
was not perceived as an additive, but rather as an integrated activity
within the whole
production process. Part of the integrated approach was to reduce energy
or material inputs and
to close cycles, so that waste streams could be minimised. Furthermore,
pollution control was to
systematically control all environmental media (water, air and soil) and
involve an evaluation of
the problem causing substances. Therefore the Fourth EAP started to
discuss a “sectoral
approach”, analysing the impact of strategic economic sectors on the
environment. For the first
time ever, the evaluation of new, incentive based instruments, such as
taxes, subsidies or tradable
emission permits was announced.
This was an initial commitment for the strategic reorientation of
environmental policies in the EC,
which gradually took place between 1989 and 1994. The ideas of the
Fourth EAP (integrated
approach, sector analysis, new instruments) were further elaborated in
the following years. This
change is often characterised as a “paradigmatic change”, a change from
“trade orientation” to
a “sustainability frame”. Environmental policy is less perceived as an
additive policy and more as
an integrated part of economic decision-making.. “Sustainable
development” gradually became
a normative reference for environmental policy in the EU from the
beginning of the 1990s
onwards. The incorporation of the environmental dimension and the
systematic search for "no
regret strategies" were promoted. In other words, win-win
situations were identified where both
environmental and economic objectives could benefit. The White Paper on
Growth,
Competitiveness and Employment (CEC 1993) proposed a new
development model, which tried
to create employment and improve the efficiency of resource use by a
shift in the relative prices
of labour and energy. Sustainable development was perceived as a tool
for improving the state
of the environment, social efficiency and competitiveness simultaneously.
A number of external factors contributed to the further advancement and
elaboration of the new
policy approach. Among the most important were the emergence of new
global threats (1), the
respective preparations for the UNCED conference in 1992 (2), the wider
support for economic
instruments (3) and a new wave of environmentalism in Europe (4). :
(1) At the end of the 1980s, the debate on global environmental risks,
especially that relating to
climate change, reached the official agenda. Since 1985 a number of
international conferences
had been urging for dramatic policy changes. In 1988, following an
initiative from the European
Parliament taken two years earlier, the Commission reacted to those
international changes with
its first general communication to the Council. In its second
communication to the Council in
1990, the Commission proposed a strategy to stabilise emissions by using
a mix of efficiency standards,
fiscal instruments and research.
The climate change debate has some inherent characteristics that require
environmental policies
beyond end-of-pipe technologies. It requires a long-term perspective,
since both the impact of
climate change and the redundancy of any effective policy measure can
only be experienced in
E U E n v i r o n m e n t a l P o l i c y H a n d b o o k
22
the long run. For CO2 reduction, traditional end-of-pipe technologies
are not yet available. That
means that integrated efficient technologies, structural change in the
economy, or even new production
and consumption patterns are required. Furthermore, CO2 reduction
requires policy
changes in several different sectors (such as energy, transport,
agriculture and the chemical
industry). To give long-term orientation to all those different sectoral
actors a target led environmental
policy approach, as established with the Kyoto-protocol and the EU
commitments on
reduction targets, is very helpful.
(2) Its global character required international action, where the
Community could play a major
role in "regime building" and as a "leader". This
last characteristic made it attractive to the
Commission because it could be used as a tool for strengthening European
integration and the
Commission’s own role in international politics. Global leadership was
an important incentive in
drafting a proposal on an energy/CO2-tax, before the UNCED conference
took place in June 1992
(ibid.)
(3) At the end of the 1980s, a new regulatory approach for environmental
policies was promoted
by the Commission -- especially the use of indirect, economic instruments.
The Task Force Report
on the Internal Market and the Environment (1989) was not the first
document but the most
explicit early document to propose environmental taxes. The different
initiatives of the
Commission became authorised by the "Dublin Declaration" of
the European Council from June
1990, which asked the Commission to prepare a communication on
"economic instruments". In
the following years, several studies on the economic, social, and
environmental impacts of these
new instruments were edited. The pilot project for this new approach -
the CO2/Energy tax - was
proposed in May 1992. The tax clearly focused on energy efficiency and
fuel substitution, both of
which were target-oriented approaches towards structural change. This
shift towards economic
and fiscal instruments took place in several OECD countries. During this
period, the limits of the
traditional approach to promote end-of-pipe solutions by regulations had
become obvious,
namely in the Scandinavian countries, Denmark, the Netherlands, and to a
certain extent in
Germany. Furthermore, the new regulatory approach fitted better into the
"neo-liberal wave"
rather than the previous command-and-control approaches, because it
focused on market
mechanisms, deregulation, and self-regulation.
(4) At the end of the 1980s, there was a mounting wave of
environmentalism. Membership of
environmental organisations increased considerably. Green parties were
popular in several EU
countries, and achieved good results at national level and in the
European Parliament. Enquiries
into environmental preferences confirm the rising level of public
expectation between 1988 and
1992. At European level, a considerable number of new ECO (Environmental
Citizens' Organisation)
offices, mainly establishing access to the EU institutions for their
national members, were
set up between 1986 and 1992. Their capacity in terms of staff,
professionalism and networking
with members and experts increased considerably during the nineties.
Thus, the new approach
was greatly supported by increased public concern for the environment in
general and strengthened
capacities of “green” organisations and parties in particular.
This strategic reorientation was then explicitly formulated in the Fifth
Environmental Action
Programme (1992 - 1999).
23
I I I . E U E n v i r o n m e n t a l Po l i c i e s : A s h o r t h i s
t o r y o f t h e p o l i c y s t r a t e g i e s
Among the most interesting and innovative elements of the Fifth
Environmental Action
Programme were:
◗ The principal aim of sustainable development according to the
definition of the Brundtland
Report.
◗ Reference to the sectoral approach, which integrates an
environmental dimension into the
most polluting sectors (transport, energy, agriculture, etc.), and the
limits of old end-of-pipe
approaches. Instead, the action programme proposed structural change in
favour of public
transport, energy efficiency and waste prevention.
◗ The emphasis on new instruments, especially on market-oriented
instruments such as fiscal
incentives or voluntary instruments, which strengthen producers and
consumers own interests
in environmental decision-making.
◗ The new consensus-oriented approach taking into account the
crucial role of non-governmental
protagonists and local/regional authorities to represent the general
interest of the environment.
This may contribute to innovative concepts, raise public awareness, and
enforce the implementation
of EU directives.
◗ The setting of medium and long-term objectives for the reduction
of some pollutants, and
proposed instruments to achieve these objectives.
Hence, the Fifth Environmental Action Programme had in its philosophical
part, all the necessary
elements of a policy oriented towards "ecological structural
change".
III.5 Roll-Back 1992 - 1995
The new approach of the Commission met considerable resistance from
Member States. The period
after the UNCED conference can be characterised as a downward cycle of
environmental policies.
Unfortunately this bold initiative from the Commission did not find
sufficient support amongst
Member States. Shortly after the UNCED conference a new agenda was
promoted by several
Member States, which concentrated mainly on the competitiveness of
industries and the decentralisation
of environmental policies. This new agenda partly contradicted the
ambitious ideas of
the 5th EAP. Therefore little progress could be achieved on the more
innovative projects of the
5th EAP - whereas decisions on others were taken relatively rapidly.
The proposal for an energy/CO2 tax, a pilot project for using the new
approach, was watered
down during two years of negotiations and finally dropped as a Community
tax in 1994. In May
1995 the Commission presented a new proposal which re-nationalised the
responsibility for introducing
such a tax for an interim period. Also, several other initiatives and
ideas for reform came
to a standstill because of strong opposition from certain industries,
from other Directorates
General of the European Commission, and from Member States.
E U E n v i r o n m e n t a l P o l i c y H a n d b o o k
24
Some of these have been well documented, including the watering down of
the originally ambitious
objectives of the packaging directive in 1994, the delays in the
Strategic Environmental
Impact Assessment directive proposal (see chapter V.3.5.2) and
progress in environmental taxation
in sectors other than the energy sector (e.g. transport,).
Member States reacted to the more ambitious elements of the 5th EAP with demands to re-nationalise
environmental policies according to the subsidiarity principle. Upon the
initiative of
Germany and UK, a high level expert group was set up to analyse the
potential to reduce regulations
that impose excessive costs on the industrial sector. The so-called
“Molitor-Group” systematically
scrutinised environmental legislation that was only perceived in terms
of its perceived
cost dimension to the economy (CEC 1995). Existing legislation
was attacked particularly in the
fields of water protection (the drinking water directive), waste (i.e.
the principle of proximity; or
the promotion reuse systems) and procedural law (Environmental Impact
Assessment Directive).
As a response to the new agenda of several Member States a new
regulatory approach emerged
that focused on procedural requirements, framework directives, voluntary
agreements and selfregulatory
information and management tools. Such instruments are rather
consensus-oriented
and require the co-operation of industries. They are less demanding on
European standards and
are less substantive, but leave more flexibility and leeway to Member
States.
As to the principle approach and the objectives, however, the Commission
confirmed and further
refined the approach of the Fifth EAP in its first and second progress
reports on its implementation.
There are a number of reasons for the “roll-back of environmental
policies”:
(1) During this period, it became obvious that the Commission was overly
optimistic on the willingness
of Member States to follow “paradigmatic change”. Some Member States
were not willing
to follow the new approach in substance. They were reluctant to support
the new quality of
European integration. The failure of the Fifth Environmental Action
Programme was interpreted
as a symptom for the limits to European integration in environmental
policies.
(2) The pending economic crisis and difficulties in ratifying the
Maastricht Treaty contributed to
a more cautious attitude from the Commission as regards the promotion of
innovative and farreaching
new proposals. Furthermore, the programmatic impetus met considerable
resistance
from both governments and interest groups -- especially from those who
would have to bear the
costs of such a new approach. Difficulties in getting the Energy/CO2-tax
proposal approved by
the Council was just a symptom of the problem of implementing the
"paradigmatic change" mentioned
above. Evaluative reports concluded that progress on policies directed
towards structural
change "has been piecemeal and slow". The reports even
observed a standstill in the efforts
towards structural change.
(3) Due to reunification the preference structure completely changed in
one of the potential leaders
of EU environmental policies – Germany.. The discussion on the
modernisation of environmental
policies there came to a standstill, whereas the economic problems of
reunification, especially
high unemployment, became a primary concern.
25
I I I . E U E n v i r o n m e n t a l Po l i c i e s : A s h o r t h i s
t o r y o f t h e p o l i c y s t r a t e g i e s
III.6 1997 -2003: The last wave of
environmental regulation?
At the end of the 90s one can observe a patchwork of different,
partially contradictory trends,
with different environmental policy approaches being promoted
simultaneously. There was a certain
revival of the "sustainability approach" New ambitious
legislation – partly strengthening the
emissions oriented policies of the eighties - can be observed, as well
as continuing attempts at
deregulation and diffusion of competencies.
Sustainability remains on the agenda. After it was strengthened as a
Community target in the
Amsterdam Treaty from 1997, the Commission and several Presidencies
launched an initiative for
environmental policy integration, called the Cardiff Process.
Environmental policy integration
and sustainable development became key elements of a complex
architecture of strategy documents.
The Commission shifted from its previous top-down approach and its
instrumental focus
of environmental policy integration towards a broader and less committed
approach: basically
sectoral Council formations were asked to identify the key problems of
their sectors, to define
objectives and to formulate activities in order to meet the objectives.
Generally most of the sector
strategies lacked committment, were vague and lacked innovation. The
hopes of the
Commission, that sectoral self-responsibility and voluntary action by
transport, agriculture or economic
ministers would work, were left frustrated.. Some progress was achieved
on indicators, as
were some sector targets, namely for transport and energy (EEB 1999,
2001). A serious target setting
process on some key environmental issues was not launched by the
Commission (see: SRU
2002).
However the revival of environmental legislation in the late 90s was
impressive An unprecedented
regulatory boom on many technical but also some very political issues
started in 1996. This
included :
◗ New complex and holistic framework legislation, such as the
Ambient Air Quality Directive
(96/62), the Water Framework Directive (2000/60) or the IPPC-Directive
(1996/61), formulating
an ambitious work programme for several decades, while delegating many
decisions and
tasks to member states, bureaucratic networks or to civil society and
business. The reform of
European Chemicals Policies launched in the late nineties and proposed
in 2003 also belongs
to this category. It is still to be seen if these new tools of
cooperative governance mobilise sufficient
resources and enthusiasm can drive environmental innovation.
◗ New target oriented legislation, setting maximum national
emission ceilings for key pollutants,
but leaving member states the freedom to choose how to achieve necessary
reductions.
The NEC-Directive (2001/81) is the most sophisticated example of this
approach. Based upon
long term targets and an assessment of a cost-effective reduction curve,
the EU has set nationally
differentiated emission ceilings for 4 pollutants. With the 2003
Emission Trading Directive,
another target-oriented policy, setting nationally differentiated
CO2-targets – the so called
burden-sharing agreement – became legally binding.
E U E n v i r o n m e n t a l P o l i c y H a n d b o o k
26
◗ The Completion, revision or modernisation of existing
legislative programmes, such as the
daughter directives on air quality (1999/30; 2000/69;2002/3), on
emission control for cars
(98/69) and lorries (99/96), fuel standards (in 1998) or the large
combustion plants (2001)and
the incineration directives (2000/76), the landfill directive /1999/31)
or the revision of the
Seveso, the Ecolabel and EMAS-directives generally lead to more
ambitious standards and a
more comprehensive system of protection.
◗ The introduction of many new environmental policy instruments -
namely the establishment
of producer responsibility, take back and recovery targets for some
waste streams (End of Life
Vehicules (2000/53) and WEEE (2002/96), Strategic Environmental Impact
Assessment
(2001/42) , Environmental Liability (2004), CO2- Emission Trading
(2003/87). All are incentive
based instruments, internalising the external costs of giving feed-back
to economic and public
decisions.
◗ New procedural legislation or the revision of existing
legislation strengthening civil society
rights, notably the three Aarhus pillars: freedom to information,
participation rights and
access to justice (Directives 2003/4,2003/35 and CEC Directive proposal
2003/624).
Furthermore policy preparation at EU level became much more
participatory, inviting environmental
NGOs to play a role in committees, expert networks and numerous
consultation processes
and hence to slightly counterbalance influential industry lobbying at
all levels of the
Commission. .
Each of those pieces of legislation had more or less serious
shortcomings and deficits. However
the system of environmental programmes, duties, rights and incentives
made impressive
progress during that phase. New committed member states, the
environmental Commissioners
of that period, the strong and constructive support of
"rainbow" coalitions in the European
Parliament and of a majority of Green and Social Democrat Ministers in
the Environmental
Council all contributed to the unprecedented dynamics of that period. A
"green triangle" of environmental
policy making between Commission, Environmental Council and the European
Parliament was able to successfully bypass traditional veto players,
pursuing economic or institutional
interests and succeeded in introducing new instruments, which would have
politically
failed politically even in so-called pioneering member states without
European support. National
environmental policies have become mainly EU driven.
III.7 The 6th EAP and the Thematic Strategies
The 6th EAP
may fall within a secular change in support for ambitious environmental
policies. The
overall political agenda is driven by the development concerns of new
member states, a new
wave of deregulation linked with the debate on European Governance and
the increasing relevance
of economic considerations. All this is also reflected in a change of
political majorities in
Europe.
27
I I I . E U E n v i r o n m e n t a l Po l i c i e s : A s h o r t h i s
t o r y o f t h e p o l i c y s t r a t e g i e s
The 6th EAP
does not share the ambitious goals of its predecessor. It is both more
reluctant to set
targets and to identify key instruments. The starting point of the 6th EAP is that so-called persistent
environmental problems, such as climate change, the loss of biodiversity
or the over-consumption
of resources require a broader approach beyond environmental
legislation.
Furthermore the need for the consolidation of existing legislation is
increasing, especially in the
view of enlargement. Basically the 6th
EAP formulates a framework of general principles and
objectives, which will be more specified by so-called thematic
strategies on key issues, such as
pesticides, resources, recycling, soils, the urban environment, the
marine environment, and clean
air. The reform of chemicals policy and policies to reduce EU green
house gas emissions also
belongs to the key policy priorities for this first decade of the new
millennium.
The 6th EAP
adopts a very cautious approach. It identifies themes and principles.
Specification
takes place by strategies, which are partially frameworks for further
frameworks. The political
strategy of the 6th EAP is to postpone potentially contentious and controversial political
decisions
to later phases or to avoid them altogether by relying on cooperative
approaches to environmental
policy making. Cooperative approaches with industry, such as integrated
product policies, the
wider use of standardisation for environmental policies, voluntary
agreements, cooperation with
Member States’ expert fora, or both (e.g. chemicals policy reform) rank
high on the political agenda
in order to manage complex risks, where knowledge both on the scale of
the problem and on
the availability of solutions is limited. It is evident that those new
governance approaches relieve
the legislator and strengthen the role of private and public
professionals with specific technical
skills. Furthermore the Commission is changing its key role from an
initiator of legislation to a
manager of policy processes. Environmental policy may hence lose its
previous political profile
and become more and more a theme for small specialist expert
communities. Those communities
are responsive to scientific evidence, but the selection criteria for representatives
from civil
society wanting to participate in those communities has also increased.
The cooperative management
of the policy processes is very demanding in terms of resources and
staff and some
processes simply fail to gain momentum because of insufficient public
investment, Integrated
product policy is certainly a case in point. So it is far from evident
that cooperative arrangements
deliver more than the traditional regulatory instruments. This applies
especially to countries and
situations where the negotiation capacity and expertise of public
service and of environmental
organisations is in the early stages of development. A further problem
is that policy approaches
become over complex. Holistic and integrated approaches promise to
tackle and balance everything
with everything at the same time. However the risk is that in the end
they amount only to
fine rhetoric on principles - and little action.
III.8 Outlook
Future environmental policies need to become refocussed. Persistent
environmental problems
are the challenge for the forthcoming phase of policy making and should
be prioritised. Solving
persistent environmental problems needs the involvement of other
sectors, but environmental
policy will have to play a key role. Setting quantitative and binding
targets, which may be nationally
differentiated but give direction to Europe’s environment as a whole,
and defining acceptable
E U E n v i r o n m e n t a l P o l i c y H a n d b o o k
28
levels of risk and of environmental quality based upon the precautionary
principle, will continue
to be an environmental policy task. There is also a great deal of scope
for improvement in emissions
standards, and restrictions or incentives for further preventative
behaviour from business
and consumers. However, the behaviour of these two groups will not
improve if the overall market
signals are wrong. Implementation not only requires better cooperation
and negotiation
with other sectors and with industry, but there will also be a need in
the future for someone who
is entitled to negotiate on behalf of the environment, such as
environmental citizens organisations
and naturally the respective environmental authorities. Environmental
legislation on targets
and quality objectives are key starting points for negotiating with
industry and member states.
Clean air and climate change policies show that a target led approach
can acts as driving force
for improvement.
FURTHER
READING:
ANDERSEN, M. S., LIEFFERINK, D. (1997): European Environmental Policy.
The Pioneers.
Manchester: Manchester University Press.
COLLIER, U. (Hrsg.): Deregulation in the European Union. Environmental
Perspectives. London:
Routledge, S. 3-22.
DE BRUIJN, T.J.N.M., NORBERG-BOHM, V. (Hrsg.) (2004):
Sharing Responsibilities. Voluntary,
Collaborative and Information-based Approaches in Environmental Policy
in the US and Europe.
Cambridge: MIT Press
DE CLERCQ, M. (Hrsg.) (2002): Negotiating Environmental Agreements in
Europe. Critical Factors
for Success. Cheltenham, Northampton: Edward
Elgar.
DEMMKE, Ch., UNFRIED, M. (2001): European Environmental Policy: The
Administrative Challenge
for the Member States. Maastricht: European Institute of Public
Administration.
EEAC 2003: European Governance for the Environment, Statement: download
at
http://www.eeac-network.org
EEB (1999): Do sector strategies work? An evaluation of four sector
strategies on integrating environment
and sustainable development: download at http://www.eeb.org
EEB (2001) Enviornmental Policy Integration. Proposals for a better
institutional framework,
based on an examination of the Cardiff Process, EEB document No.
2001/019; download at :
http://www.eeb.org
EICHENER, V. (2000): Das Entscheidungssystem der Europäischen Union.
Institutionelle Analyse
und demokratietheoretische Bewertung. Opladen:
Leske + Budrich.
CEC Commission of the European Communities (1993): Growth, Competitivity
and Employment:
White Paper
29
I I I . E U E n v i r o n m e n t a l Po l i c i e s : A s h o r t h i s
t o r y o f t h e p o l i c y s t r a t e g i e s
CEC Commission of the European Communities (1995): Report of the Group
of Independent
Experts on Legislative and Administrative simplification.
CEC Commission of the European Communities (2001): White Paper on
Governance. Brussels.
CEC Commission of the European Communities (2002): Status of the
Cardiff-Prozess. December 2002.
– download at
http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/environment/integration/cardiff_status.pdf
CEC Commission of the European Communities (2002a): Communication from
the Commission –
Action plan “Simplifying and improving the regulatory environment”. Com
(2002) 278 from
5.6.2002, 19 S.
GLASBERGEN, P. (Hrsg.) (1998): Co-operative
Environmental Governance. Public-Private
Agreements as a Policy Strategy. Dordrecht, Boston, London: Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
GOLUB, J. (Ed.) (1998): New Instruments for Environmental Policy in the
EU. London and New
York: Routledge.
HEINELT, H. (Hrsg.) (2000): Prozedurale Umweltpolitik der EU.
Umweltverträglichkeitsprüfungen
und Öko-Audits im Ländervergleich. Opladen: Leske +
Budrich.
HÉRITIER, A. (2001): New modes of governance in Europe: policy-making
without legislating?
Bonn: Max-Planck-Projektgruppe Recht der Gemeinschaftsgüter.
HEY, C. (1994): Die europäische Umweltpolitik. München, BeckVerlag.
HEY, C. (1998): Nachhaltige Mobilität in Europa: Akteure. Institutionen.
Politische Strategien,
Westdeutscher Verlag. Opladen, 298p.
HEY, C. (2001): From Result to Process-Orientation: The New Governance
Approach of EU
Environmental Policy. elni Review H. 2, S. 28-32.
HEY, C (2003). Industrylobbying in Brüssel:
Einflussstrategien und –barrieren. In: ZUR, Sonderheft
2003. Nomos. Baden-Baden
HEY, C./ Brendle, U.(1994b): Towards a new renaissance: A new
development model. Part A
Reversing the rollback of environmental policies in the European Union. Brussels EEB, European
Environmental Bureau.
HOLZINGER, K., KNILL, Ch., SCHÄFER, A. (2002): European Environmental
Governance in
Transition? Bonn: Max-Planck-Projektgruppe Recht der Gemeinschaftsgüter.
Liefferink, J.D./ Lowe, P.D./ Mol, A.P.J. (eds.) (1993): European
Integration and Environmental
Policy. London/ New York: Belhaven Press. .
KNILL, Ch. (2003): Europäische Umweltpolitik. Steuerungsprobleme und
Regulierungsmuster im
Mehrebenensystem. Opladen: Leske +Budrich
E U E n v i r o n m e n t a l P o l i c y H a n d b o o k
30
KNILL, Ch., LENSCHOW, A. (2000b): Implementing EU Environmental Policy –
New Direction and
old Problems. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
KNILL, Ch., LENSCHOW, A. (2003): Modes of Regulation in the Governance
of the European Union:
towards a Comprehensive Evaluation. European integration online papers 7
(203). Online im
Internet: URL: Http://eiop.or.at/eiop/texte/2003-001a.htm [Stand
12.02.2003].
KRÄMER, L. (2002): Development of Environmental Policies in the United
States and Europe:
Convergence or Divergence? Florence: European University Institute. EUI
Working Papers, RSC
No. 2002/33.
LENSCHOW, A. (Hrsg.) (2002): Environmental Policy Integration. Greening
Sectoral Policies in
Europe. London: Earthscan.
Meuleman/Niestroy/Hey (eds.)(2003): Environmental Governance in Europe.
RMNO Background
Studies (V.02, 2003). Lemma, Utrecht.
OECD (2003): Voluntary Approaches for Environmental Policy. – Paris:
OECD.
PALLEMAERTS, M. (1999): The Decline of Law as an Instrument of Community
Environmental
Policy. Revue des
Affaires Européennes No. 3/4, S. 338-354.
Rehbinder, Eckart/ Stewart (1986): Integration through Law: Europe and
the American
Experience. Environmental Policy, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
RITTBERBER, B., RICHARDSON, J. (2001): (Mis-)Matching declarations and
actions? Commission
proposals in the light of the Fifth Environmental Action Programme.
Paper presented to the
Seventh Biennial International Conference of the ECSA, May 31-June 2,
2001. Online im Internet:
URL: Http://www.nuff.ox.ac.uk/Politics/ECSAA%RittbererRichardson.htm
[Stand 13.08.02].
SADELEER, N. de (2002):
Environmental principles. From political slogans
to legal rules. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
SCHARPF, F.W. (1999): Governing in Europe: effective and democratic. New
York: Oxford University
Press.
SRU (2002): Environmental Report 2002; unter: http://www.umweltrat.de
SRU (2004): Environmental Report 2004; unter: http://www.umweltrat.de (in
June 2004)
WEALE, A., PRIDHAM, G., CINI, M., KONSTADAKOPULOS, D., PORTER, M.,
FLYNN, B. (2000):
Environmental Governance in Europe. An ever Closer Ecological Union?
Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
WURZEL, R. K. W. (2002): Environmental policymaking in Britain, Germany
and the European
Union. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
DECISION
OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
Laying
down the Community Environment Action Programme 2001-2010
(Presented
by the Commission)
67
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM
1. INTRODUCTION
In
1992, the Fifth Environmental Action Programme, ‘Towards Sustainability’ was
launched.
By the end of the Programme, it was clear that, despite the existence of a
comprehensive
environmental legislation, the environment still required attention.
This
new Action Programme seeks to identify the areas where new action or a fresh
orientation
is required. Many of the conclusions and measures proposed in the Fifth
Programme
remain valid, but they are largely a question of implementation on the
ground.
More persistent and intractable problems, such as climate change, require a
more
concerted effort at Community level to lead the way. This Action Programme
sets
this agenda and puts the environmental policy challenges in a wider context of
sustainable
development, the inter-reliance between economic progress and a sound
environment,
globalisation and the enlargement of the European Union.
2. GLOBAL ASSESSMENT
OF THE FIFTH ENVIRONMENT ACTION
PROGRAMME
In
the review of the Fifth Environment Action Programme, the Commission was
asked
to undertake a global assessment of the achievements of that programme. This
evaluation,
based on the state of the environment report from the European
Environment
Agency, concluded that progress had been made in achieving
environmental
objectives but that much remained to be done. The Global Assessment
was
published as a platform for debate on future environment priorities.
3. EXTERNAL CONSULTATIONS
A
wide consultation with stakeholders in Member States took place following the
publication
of the ‘Global Assessment’. This involved 12 seminars organised by
national
authorities, a seminar with industry and enterprise representatives, meetings
and
contacts with various non-governmental associations and written comments from
regional
bodies and individuals. To facilitate the process a public web page was
made
available.
The
Applicant countries were also encouraged to offer their views on the priorities
of
an
Action Programme that will cover the period following the first accessions to
the
Union.
The Regional Environment Centre in Hungary co-ordinated comprehensive
input
from national authorities and non-governmental organisations.
4. THE ACTION PROGRAMME AND SUSTAINABLE
DEVELOPMENT
The
Fifth Environment Action Programme was instrumental in establishing
sustainable
development as an objective for the European Union. This was confirmed
in
the Treaty of Amsterdam.
Sustainable
development cannot be achieved by environment policy alone. It will
require
the commitment of all policy-makers, including environment, across the full
68
range
of Community policies, seeking to achieve the optimal balance of economic,
social
and environmental objectives.
The
role of this new environment action programme thus changes character. It
represents
the environmental dimension of a wider Community strategy for
sustainability.
It aims at identifying the key environmental problems and their
driving
forces. Environmental integration is the mechanism to help ensure that the
other
policy areas respond to the problems in an effective way.
5. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
The
Action Programme outlines the priority objectives that need to be attained to
ensure
a clean and healthy environment. It sets out the key challenges for the future
but
does not prescribe the precise nature of the actions and measures that will be
needed.
These will be the subject of subsequent initiatives, which will address the
financial
implications of each measure.
6. SUBSIDIARITY
The
Action Programme addresses those environmental problems where action and
leadership
is needed at European level. This reflects the trans-frontier nature of
environmental
issues and their solutions.
7. COHERENCEWITH OTHER COMMUNITY
POLICIES
The
Action Programme recognises the umbilical link between the Community’s
economic
and social policies and the potential impact on the environment.
Environmental
integration, enshrined in Article 6 of the Treaty, is an essential
component
of the Action Programme.
8. A
TEN YEAR TIMEFRAME
A
ten year time scale is proposed for the Programme. This is considered the
minimum
for:
–
The development of new measures
–
The transposition and implementation of the measures
–
The measures to take meaningful effect
–
The ability to evaluate the effectiveness of those measures
To
respond to changing circumstances, a mid-term review of the Programme is
foreseen.
Indicators will be published regularly to allow monitoring of progress and
to
stimulate responses where necessary.
69
2001/0029
(COD)
Proposal
for a
DECISION
OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
Laying
down the Community Environment Action Programme 2001-2010
THE
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having
regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular
Article
175
paragraph 3,
Having
regard to the proposal from the Commission1,
Having
regard to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee2,
Having
regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions3,
Acting
in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 251 of the Treaty4,
Whereas:
(1)
A clean and healthy environment is essential for the continuing well-being and
prosperity
of society, yet continued growth at a global level will lead to unprecedented
pressures
on the environment.
(2)
The Community’s fifth environmental action programme ‘Towards Sustainability’
ended
on 31 December 2000 having delivered a number of important improvements.
(3)
A number of serious environmental problems persist and require further action.
(4)
A prudent use of natural resources and the protection of the global eco-system
together
with
economic prosperity and a balanced social development are a condition for
sustainable
development.
(5)
This programme targets the environmental dimension of sustainable development,
whilst
aiming also at a general improvement in the environment and quality of life in
the
European Union.
(6)
This environmental action programme establishes the environmental priorities
for a
Community
response, covering a ten year time period to allow sufficient time for
identification
of new measures, implementation and evaluation of their effects.
1 OJ C […], […], p. […].
2 OJ C […], […], p. […].
3 OJ C […], […], p. […].
4 OJ C […], […], p. […].
70
(7)
The objectives, priorities and actions of this Decision will apply to an
enlarged
Community.
(8)
Legislation remains central to meeting environmental challenges and full and
correct
implementation
of the existing legislation will be a priority.
(9)
Integration of environmental concerns into economic and social policies is
essential to
tackle
the driving forces behind the pressures on the environment and further progress
is
needed.
(10)
A strategic approach is needed to induce the necessary changes in production
and
consumption
patterns that influence the state and trends of the environment,
incorporating
new ways of working with the market, empowering citizens and
encouraging
better land use planning and management decisions.
(11)
There is scientific consensus that human activity is causing increases in
concentrations
of
greenhouse gases, leading to higher global temperatures and disruption to the
climate.
(12)
The implications of climate change for human society and for nature are severe
and
necessitate
measures to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.
(13)
The prevention of climate change can be achieved without a reduction in levels
of
growth
and prosperity through the de-coupling of economic growth from emissions.
(14)
Healthy and balanced natural systems are essential for supporting life on the
planet.
(15)
There is considerable pressure from human activity on nature and bio-diversity,
arising
notably
from pollution, the way in which land and sea is exploited.
(16)
Soil is a finite resource that is under pressure.
(17)
Despite improvements in environmental standards, human health is affected by
the
quality
of air, water and food and there is evidence of increased allergies,
respiratory
diseases,
cancer and other maladies.
(18)
Pollution from transport, agricultural activities, industrial processes,
domestic effluent
and
waste management contribute to the poor environmental quality that adversely
affects
human health.
(19)
Greater focus is required on prevention and precaution in developing an
approach to
protect
human health and the environment.
(20)
The capacity of the planet to absorb the demand and waste resulting from the
use of
resources
is under pressure, with adverse effects arising from the use of metals,
minerals
and hydro-carbons.
(21)
Waste volumes in the Community continue to rise, leading to loss of land and
resources
as well as to pollution.
(22)
A significant proportion of waste is hazardous.
71
(23)
Economic globalisation means that environmental action is increasingly needed
at
international
level, requiring new responses from the Community linked to policy
related
to trade, development and external affairs.
(24)
Environmental policy-making, given the complexities of the issues, needs to be
based
on
sound scientific and economic assessment, based on a knowledge of the state and
trends
of the environment, in line with Article 174 of the Treaty .
(25)
Information to policy makers and the general public has to be relevant, up to
date and
easily
understandable.
(26)
Progress towards meeting environmental objectives needs to be measured and
evaluated.
(27)
A review of the progress made and an assessment of the need to change orientation
should
be made at the mid term point of the programme,
HAVE
DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
Article
1
Establishment
of the Programme
1.
This decision establishes a programme of Community action on the environment,
hereafter
referred to as ‘the programme’, which sets out priority objectives to be
attained.
2.
This programme shall cover the period starting on 1 January 2001 and ending on
31
December
2010.
Article
2
Overall
Aim and objectives
1.
The programme lays down the key environmental objectives and priorities of the
current
and
a future enlarged Community that will contribute to the Community’s sustainable
development
strategy, based on an assessment of the state and trends of the environment
and
the identification of those persistent environmental problems that require a
lead from
the
Community.
2.
The Programme shall facilitate the full integration of environmental protection
requirements
into other Community policies while, at the same time, ensuring that
measures
proposed and adopted in favour of the environment take account of the
objectives
of the economic and social dimensions of sustainable development, full
consideration
of all options and instruments, as well as being based on extensive dialogue
and
sound science.
3.
The Programme aims at stabilising the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse
gases at a
level
that will not cause unnatural variations of the earth's climate. This will
require
making
progress towards the long-term requirement established by the Intergovernmental
panel
on climate change to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases by 70% over 1990
levels,
with the following objectives:
72
–
Ratification of the Kyoto Protocol and meeting of the target of an 8% reduction
in
emissions
by 2008-12 over 1990 for the current Member States;
–
Placing the Community in a credible position to insist on an international
agreement
on a new goal for the period subsequent to Kyoto, which should aim at
cutting
emissions significantly.
4.
The Programme aims at protecting and restoring the functioning of natural systems
and
halting
the loss of bio-diversity both in the European Union and on a global scale,
with the
following
objectives:
–
Protection of the natural environment from damaging pollution emissions.
–
Protection of soils against erosion and pollution.
– Protection
of biological diversity, in line with the Community’s bio-diversity
strategy5.
–
Protection of bio-diversity and landscape values across the rural areas of the
Community.
5.
The Programme aims at an environment where the levels of man-made contaminants
do
not
give rise to significant impacts on, or unacceptable risks to, human health.
The
Programme
specifically aims at:
–
Achieving better understanding of the threats to human health;
–
Assessing all chemicals produced in relevant quantities in a step by step
approach
with
clear target dates and deadlines (as outlined in the White Paper on the new
chemicals
strategy), starting with the high production volume chemicals and
chemicals
of particular concern
–
Ensuring that the levels of pesticides in the environment do not give rise to
significant
risks to or impacts on human health and the environment and, more
generally,
to achieve an overall reduction in the use of pesticides.
–
Achieving levels of water quality that do not give rise to significant impacts
on
and
risks to human health and the environment, and to ensure that the rates of
extraction
from water resources are sustainable over the long term.
–
Achieving levels of air quality that do not give rise to significant impacts on
and
risks
to human health and environment.
–
Substantially reducing the number of people regularly affected by long-term and
significant
levels of noise.
6.
The Programme aims at better resource efficiency and resource and waste
management,
with
the following objectives:
5 Communication of the European Commission
to the Council and to the Parliament on a European
Community Biodiversity Strategy, COM (98) 42 final
73
–
Ensuring that the consumption of renewable and non-renewable resources and
their
associated impacts does not exceed the carrying capacity of the environment;
– A
significant reduction in the quantity of waste going to final disposal and the
volumes
of hazardous waste produced, in the lifetime of the programme
–
Achieving a significant overall reduction in the volumes of waste generated
through
waste prevention initiatives, better resource efficiency and a shift towards
more
sustainable consumption patterns, thereby de-coupling the link between
generation
of waste and economic growth.
–
For wastes that are still generated: they should be non-hazardous or present as
little
risk as possible; preference should be given to recovery and especially to
recycling
the quantity of waste for final disposal should be minimised and should
be
safely destroyed or disposed of; waste should be treated as closely as possible
to
the place of its generation, to the extent that this is compatible with
Community
legislation
and does not lead to a decrease in the economic and technical
efficiency
in waste treatment operations.
7.
The Programme shall promote the adoption of policies and approaches that permit
sustainable
development in the candidate countries.
8.
Promoting environment and sustainable development in the Candidate countries
through:
–
Extended dialogue with the administrations in the Candidate Countries on
sustainable
development;
–
Co-operation with environmental NGOs and business in the Candidate Countries
to
raise awareness.
9.
The Programme shall stimulate the development of a global partnership for
environment
and
contribute to sustainable development by ensuring:
–
The integration of environmental and sustainable development concerns and
objectives
into all aspects of the Community’s external relations;
–
That environmental issues are addressed and are properly resourced by
international
organisations;
–
The implementation of international conventions relating to the environment;
–
The active search for consensus on the evaluation of risk to health and the
environment,
including the sharing of information, collaboration on research and
the
development of testing procedures with a view to facilitate international
consensus
on risk management approaches, including the application of the
precautionary
principle where necessary.
10.
The Programme shall ensure that the Community’s environmental policy-making is
undertaken
in an integrated way, based on an extensive and wide ranging dialogue with
stakeholders,
citizen involvement, an analysis of cost-effectiveness and sound scientific
data
and information, taking into account the latest research and technological
development.
74
Article
3
Strategic
approaches to meeting environmental objectives
The
objectives set out in Article 2 on strategic approaches shall be pursued inter
alia by means
of
the following priority actions.
1.
Encouraging more effective implementation of Community legislation on the
environment
and
without prejudice to the Commission's right to initiate infringement
proceedings
requires:
–
Support to the exchange of information on best practice on implementation by the
IMPEL
network;
–
Measures to combat environmental crime.
–
Promotion of improved standards of inspection and monitoring by Member States.
2.
Integration of environmental protection requirements into the definition of all
Community
policies
and activities. This requires:
–
Ensuring that the integration strategies produced by the Council in different
policy
areas
are translated into effective action;
–
Regular monitoring, via relevant indicators, and reporting on the process of
sectoral
integration;
–
Further integration of environmental criteria into Community funding
programmes;
3.
To promote the polluter pays principle, through the use of market based
instruments,
including
the use of emissions trading, environmental taxes, charges and subsidies, to
internalise
the negative as well as the positive impacts on the environment.
4.
To promote co-operation and partnership with enterprises and their
representative bodies
on
environment matters requires:
–
Encouraging wider uptake of the Community's Eco-Management and Audit
schemes6 and developing initiatives to encourage companies to
publish rigorous
and
independently verified environmental or sustainable development
performance
reports;
–
Establishing a compliance assistance programme, with specific help for small
and
medium
enterprises;
–
Stimulating the introduction of company environmental performance reward
schemes;
–
Promoting an integrated policy approach that will encourage the taking into
account
of environmental requirements throughout the life-cycle of products, and
more
widespread application of environmentally friendly processes and products;
6 Insert full reference when available
75
–
Encouraging voluntary commitments and agreements to achieve clear
environmental
objectives.
5.
To help ensure that consumers are better informed about the processes and
products in
terms
of their environmental impact:
–
Encouraging the uptake of eco-labels that allow consumers to compare
environmental
performance between products of the same type;
–
Encouraging the use of reliable self-declared environmental claims and
preventing
misleading
claims;
–
Promoting green procurement, while respecting Community competition rules and
the
internal market, with guide-lines on best practice and starting with a review
of
green
procurement in Community Institutions.
6.
To support environmental integration in the financial sector requires:
–
Considering a voluntary initiative with the financial sector, covering
guide-lines
for
the incorporation of data on environmental cost in company annual financial
reports,
and the exchange of best policy practices between Member States;
–
Calling on the European Investment Bank to strengthen the integration of
environmental
objectives and considerations into its lending activities;
7.
To create a Community liability regime requires:
–
Legislation on environmental liability.
8.
To promote better understanding of environmental issues amongst European
citizens
requires:
–
Supporting the provision of accessible information to citizens on the
environment;
–
Providing a tool-kit of resources aimed at helping local and regional
authorities or
other
organisations to communicate with citizens on environmental issues and
notably
on the benchmarking of household environmental performance and
information
to improve it.
9.
To encourage and promote effective land use planning and management decisions
taking
account
of environmental concerns, while fully respecting the subsidiarity principle,
requires:
–
Promoting best practice with respect to sustainable land use planning, with
particular
emphasis on the Integrated Coastal Zone Management programme;
–
Supporting programmes and networks fostering the exchange of experience and
the
development of good practice on sustainable urban development and on
sustainable sea exploitation;
–
Increasing resources and giving broader scope for agri-environment measures
under
the Common Agricultural Policy;
76
Article
4
Priority
areas for action on tackling climate change
The
objectives set out in Article 2 on climate change shall be pursued inter alia
by means of
the
following priority actions.
1.
With a view to meeting the targets established by the Kyoto Protocol:
–
Ratifying and implementing the Kyoto Protocol;
–
Establishing objectives to be achieved in a cost effective way for reductions
in
greenhouse
gas emissions in the various sectors, in conjunction with the European
Climate Change Programme;
–
Establishing a Community wide emissions trading scheme in CO2.
–
Undertaking an inventory and review of energy subsidies in Member States. This
will
include consideration of the compatibility with the achievement of climate
change
objectives;
–
Encouraging a shift towards low carbon fuels for power generation;
–
Encouraging renewable energy sources, with a view to meeting a target of 12% of
energy
from renewable sources by 2010;
–
Promoting the use of fiscal measures, including at the Community level, to
encourage
a switch to cleaner energy and transport and to encourage technological
innovation,
including the adoption of a framework for energy taxation;
–
Encouraging environmental agreement with industry sectors on energy efficiency.
–
Identifying specific actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from aviation
if
no
such action is agreed within the International Civil Aviation Organisation by
2002;
–
Ensuring climate change as a major theme of Community policy for research and
technological
development and for national research programmes.
–
Developing means to assist SMEs to adapt, innovate and improve performance;
–
Introducing incentives to increase Combined Heat and Power;
–
Promoting eco-efficiency practices and techniques in industry;
–
Promoting energy saving on both the heating and cooling of buildings.
2.
Prepare for measures aimed at adaptation to the consequences of climate change,
by:
–
Reviewing Community policies, in particular those related to cohesion policy,
so
that
adaptation is addressed adequately in investment decisions;
77
–
Encouraging regional climate modelling and assessments to prepare regional
adaptation
measures and to support awareness raising among citizens and
business.
Article
5
Priority
areas for action on nature and bio-diversity
The
objectives set out in Article 2 on the protection and restoration of natural
systems and
bio-diversity
shall be pursued by means of the following priority actions. This requires:
1.
On accidents and disasters:
–
Promoting Community co-ordination to actions by Member States in response to
accidents
and natural disasters;
–
Developing measures to help prevent the major accident hazards arising from
pipelines
and mining, and measures on mining waste.
2. A
thematic strategy on soil protection.
3.
Promoting the integration of landscape protection and restoration into other
policies.
4.
Encouraging further development of the positive elements of the relationship
between
agriculture
and the environment in future reviews of the Common Agricultural Policy.
5.
Promoting greater integration of environmental considerations in the Common
Fisheries
Policy,
taking the opportunity of its review in 2002.
6.
Developing strategies and measures on forests, incorporating the following
elements:
–
The development of national and regional forestry and sustainable forest
management,
under rural development plans, in line with work being undertaken
in
the Inter-Governmental Forum on Forests and the Pan-European Ministerial
Conference
on the protection of forests;
–
The continuation of the existing Community measures on the protection of
forests
with
increased emphasis on the monitoring of the multiple functions of forests;
–
Encouraging credible forest certification schemes.
–
The continuation of the active participation of the Community in the
implementation
of the resolutions of the ministerial conferences on the Protection
of
Forests in Europe and in the international discussion and negotiations on
forestrelated
issues.
7. A
thematic strategy for the protection of the marine environment.
8.
Reinforcing controls on monitoring, labelling and traceability of GMOs.
9.
Monitoring the implementation of the Community’s bio-diversity strategy and
action
plans
through a programme for gathering data and information.
78
Article
6
Priority
areas for action on environment and health
The
objectives set out in Article 2 on health and environment shall be pursued by
means of
the
following priority actions:
1.
Reinforcement of Community research and scientific expertise, and encouragement
to the
coordination
of national research programmes, to support achievement of objectives on
health
and environment, and in particular the:
–
Identification and recommendations on the priority areas for research and
action;
–
Definition and development of indicators of health and environment;
–
Examination of the need to update current health standards and limit values,
including
where the effects on potentially vulnerable groups, such as children or
the
elderly, are taken into account;
–
Review of trends and the provision of an early warning mechanism for new or
emerging
problems;
2.
On chemicals:
–
Developing a new single system for the testing, evaluation and risk management
of
new and existing substances;
–
Developing a testing regime depending on properties, uses, exposure and volumes
of
chemicals produced or imported;
–
Establishing new specific and accelerated risk management procedures to which
substances
that give rise to very high concern have to be submitted before they are
employed
in particular uses;
–
Upgrading of information from industries on the properties of the chemicals
they
produce
and use, to cover potential risks to the environment and health;
–
Upgrading of the management of chemicals at Community level and in Member
States.
3.
On pesticides:
– A
thematic strategy on the sustainable use of pesticides;
–
Ratification of the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent
Procedure
for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade;
–
Amending Community Regulation (2455/92)7
concerning the import and export
of
dangerous chemicals with the aim of bringing it into line with the Rotterdam
7 Council Regulation (EEC) No 2455/92 of 23
July 1992 concerning the export and import of certain
dangerous chemicals, OJ L 251 , 29/08/1992 p. 13 - 22
79
Convention,
improving its procedural mechanisms and improving information to
developing
countries;
–
Improving the management of chemicals and pesticides in developing and
candidate
countries, including the elimination of stocks of obsolete pesticides.
4.
On the sustainable use and high quality of water:
–
.Phasing out of the discharge of hazardous substances to water;
–
Revising the Bathing Water Directive8;
–
Ensuring the integration of the approach of the Water Framework Directive and
water
quality objectives into the Common Agricultural Policy and Regional
Development
Policy.
5.
On air pollution:
–
Improving the monitoring of air quality and the provision of information to the
public,
including by indicators;
– A
thematic strategy on air pollution to cover priorities for further actions, the
review
and updating of air quality standards and national emission ceilings and
the
development of better systems for gathering information, modelling and
forecasting;
–
Considering indoor air quality and the impacts on health, with recommendations
for
future measures where appropriate.
Article
7
Priority
areas for action on the sustainable use of natural resources and management of
wastes
The
objectives set out in Article 2 on waste and resource management shall be
pursued by
means
of the following priority actions.
1. A
thematic strategy on the sustainable use of resources, including:
–
consideration of a best practice programme for business;
–
identifying research needs;
–
economic instruments;
–
removal of subsidies that encourage the over-use of resources;
8 Council Directive 76/160/EEC
of 8 December 1975 concerning the quality of bathing
water, OJ L31,
05.02.76, p 1-7,: as amended by Council Directive 90/656/EEC of 4 December 1990, OJ L 353,
17.12.90 and Council Directive 91/692/EEC of 23 December 1991, OJ L 377, 31.12.91
80
–
integration of resource efficiency considerations into an Integrated Product
Policy
approach.
2.
On waste prevention:
–
Integrating waste prevention objectives and priorities into an Integrated
Product
Policy
approach.
3.
Revising the legislation on sludges9.
4.
Recommendations on construction and demolition waste.
5.
Legislating on bio-degradable wastes.
6. A
thematic strategy on waste recycling, including measures aimed at ensuring the
collection
and recycling of priority waste streams.
Article
8
Priority
areas for action on international issues
The
objectives set out in Article 2 on international issues shall be pursued by
means of the
following
priority actions:
1.
Integration of environment concerns and sustainable development into all the
Community's
external policies.
2.
Establishing a coherent set of environment and development targets for adoption
at the
World
Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002, and work towards strengthening
international
environmental governance.
3.
Promoting sound environmental practices in foreign direct investment and export
credits.
4.
Intensify efforts at the international level to arrive at consensus on methods
for the
evaluation
of risks to health and the environment, as well as approaches of risk
management
including where appropriate the precautionary principle.
5.
Ensuring that sustainability impact assessments of trade agreements are carried
out.
Article
9
Environment
policy making based on participation and sound knowledge
The
objectives set out in Article 2 on environment policy-making based on
participation and
sound
knowledge shall be pursued by means of the following priority actions:
1.
Mechanisms within which stakeholders, especially those directly affected by
proposals
and
other initiatives, are widely and extensively consulted at all stages so as to
facilitate
9 Council Directive 86/278/EEC of 12 June
1986 on the protection of the environment, and in particular
of the soil, when sewage sludge is used in agriculture, Official Journal
L 181 , 04/07/1986 p. 6 - 12
81
the
most effective choices and to ensure better a satisfactory result for the
environment in
regard
to the measures to be proposed.
2.
Continuing financial support to environmental NGOs to facilitate participation
in the
dialogue
process.
3.
Ensuring that environment remains a major priority for Community research
programmes.
Ensuring
better co-ordination of research related to the environment conducted in Member
States.
4.
Ensuring regular information to the public on the environment and related
issues by
the
production of annual headline environmental indicator reports and integration
indicators,
which
show the value of environmental damage where possible.
5.
Reviewing information and reporting systems with a view to the introduction of
a
more
coherent and effective system to ensure reporting of high quality, comparable
environmental
data and information.
6.
Reinforcing the development of geographical information systems and the use of
space
monitoring applications in support of policy-making and implementation.
Article
10
Monitoring
and evaluation of results
1.
The Commission shall evaluate the progress made in implementing the programme
in the
fourth
year of operation. The Commission shall submit this mid-term report together
with
any
proposal for amendment that it may consider appropriate to the European
Parliament
and
the Council.
2.
The Commission shall submit to the European Parliament and the Council a final
assessment
of the programme and the state and prospects for the environment in the
course
of the final year of the programme.
Article
11
This
Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European
Communities.
Done
at Brussels, […]
For
the European Parliament For the Council
The
President The President
[…] […]
Les ministres européens de
l'environnement fixent des objectifs chiffrés pour l'après-Kyoto
LE MONDE | 11.03.05 | 13h44
Le Conseil invite les pays
industrialisés à réduire leurs émissions de gaz à effet de serre de 15 % à 30 %
d'ici à 2020. Reste à convaincre les chefs d'Etat et de gouvernement.
Bruxelles de notre bureau européen
Les ministres de l'environnement de
l'Union européenne seraient-ils plus écologistes que la Commission ? Ils se
sont mis d'accord, jeudi 10 mars, pour fixer des objectifs chiffrés de
réduction des émissions de gaz à effet de serre au-delà de 2012, date à
laquelle le protocole de Kyoto prendra fin. La Commission y était pourtant
opposée. Le 4 février, le commissaire Stavros Dimas, en charge de
l'environnement, avait expliqué qu'il serait "prématuré" de
définir de tels objectifs : cela risquerait d'"effrayer" les
Etats-Unis, que l'Union européenne espère rallier à la lutte contre le
réchauffement climatique. Le texte que la Commission avait publié avait été
sévèrement critiqué par les Verts du Parlement européen, qui lui reprochent de
se laisser dicter sa conduite par les Américains.
Le Luxembourg, qui préside l'Union
européenne pendant le premier semestre, a revendiqué "une autre
stratégie" que celle de la Commission : "Nous avons toujours
pensé que si l'on veut que d'autres gens montent dans le bateau, il faut
clairement dire quelle direction il va prendre", a expliqué Lucien
Lux, le ministre des transports et de l'environnement de ce pays, au cours
d'une conférence de presse.
M. Lux, qui présidait la réunion du
Conseil, a affirmé que "l'Union européenne a démontré qu'elle est
capable de garder son leadership en matière d'environnement".
PHRASE DE COMPROMIS
Le conseil des ministres de
l'environnement invite les pays industrialisés à réduire leurs émissions de 15
% à 30 % d'ici à 2020, et de 60 % à 80 % d'ici à 2050, par rapport au niveau de
1990. L'organisation Greenpeace s'est félicitée de cette recommandation, qui
permettra de limiter la hausse de la température dans le monde à deux degrés
Celsius maximum au-dessus de ce qu'elle était à l'époque préindustrielle,
c'est-à-dire au XIXe siècle.
Pour faire adopter ces objectifs
ambitieux, la présidence luxembourgeoise a dû toutefois négocier une phrase de
compromis, qui stipule que "l'Union européenne ne préjuge pas de
nouvelles approches (...) dans un cadre à l'avenir flexible et
équitable". Cette phrase permet de ne pas fermer la porte aux
Etats-Unis, qui misent sur l'innovation technologique pour réduire les
émissions.
Au départ, une dizaine de pays, au nombre
desquels l'Italie, qui a ferraillé jusqu'au dernier moment, mais aussi le
Portugal ou la Pologne, étaient d'accord avec la Commission pour ne pas
inscrire d'objectifs chiffrés.
La Grande-Bretagne, l'Allemagne ou la
Suède les réclamaient au contraire, le ministre allemand Jürgen Trittin ayant
même proposé de réduire les émissions de 20 % à 30 % dès 2020. Entre les deux
camps, certains pays, comme la Belgique, la France ou la Hongrie, acceptaient
de chiffrer les réductions, tout en ne souhaitant pas aller trop vite. La
France était ainsi opposée à toute réduction dès 2020, car elle estime que les
industriels auront besoin d'un temps d'adaptation après Kyoto. Néanmoins, le
ministre de l'environnement, Serge Lepeltier, a assuré, après le Conseil, que "l'absence
de chiffres aurait été un mauvais signe à l'ensemble du monde".
Reste à savoir si les chefs d'Etat et de
gouvernement suivront leurs ministres de l'environnement lorsqu'ils se
réuniront pour leur Conseil européen de printemps, les 22 et 23 mars. M. Lux le
souhaite : "Il faut verdir la stratégie de Lisbonne, a-t-il
expliqué. Il faut faire comprendre que l'environnement et les
éco-technologies ne sont pas un frein à la croissance, mais un moteur."
Il s'est dit confiant : "Il y a 99 % de chances que nos propositions
soient adoptées."
Les divisions au sein de certains
gouvernement sont particulièrement vives. Ainsi, un conseiller de Guy
Verhofstadt, le premier ministre belge, a demandé de manière vive à sa
négociatrice, Evelyne Huytebroek, la ministre de l'environnement de la région
de Bruxelles, de revenir sur ses propos : cette élue Ecolo avait approuvé les
conclusions du Conseil, au cours d'une conférence de presse.
M. Verhofstadt est un élu la région
flamande. Soucieuse de ménager les industriels installés autour du port
d'Anvers, elle refuse ces objectifs chiffrés.
Rafaële Rivais
• ARTICLE PARU DANS L'EDITION DU 12.03.05
Transatlantic drift
Environment groups agree: at no time have Europe and
the US been as far away from each other on green policies as they are now.
Polly Ghazi investigates
Wednesday October 29, 2003
The Guardian
A Grand Canyon-sized gulf in policy and approach to
the environment is emerging between the US and Europe. It could be seen clearly
last week when Margot Wallstrom, the EU environment commissioner, came to
London and without provocation lambasted the US government for pressurising
Russia not to sign the Kyoto treaty, the US marine administration for sending
polluted boats to Britain to be broken up in Hartlepool, and American companies
involved in GM foods for "trying to lie to the European consumer".
It is becoming clear that President Bush and his rightwing advisers have
declared war on the environment and the world's two largest economic powers are
going in opposite directions in pursuit of growth.
Global warming and GM foods are only the two most visible areas where
the two powers differ, but in recent months Bush has repealed key provisions of
the US clean air, clean water and endangered species acts, chipping away at 30
years of environmental protection. He has also made it easier to cut down old
growth forests. The Natural Resources Defence Council (NRDC), a leading US
environmental group, counted more than 100 anti-environment actions taken by
the US government in 2002 alone.
The EU, by contrast, is setting its companies and consumers ever
tougher, mandatory targets to reduce pollution of any sort. In the past 15
years, it has passed 500 environment directives and regulations on water,
waste, energy, air quality, chemicals, radioactivity, wildlife and countryside,
noise, impact assessment, financial and economic instruments, and international
conventions.
Why the deep transatlantic divide? Eileen Claussen, director of the Pew
Centre on Global Climate Change in Washington, who headed the US team
negotiating international climate change policy in the Clinton era, suggests
three reasons.
First, the public in Europe demands that politicians respond to
environmental concerns; more so than the American public. Bush "never had
an environmental constituency going into his presidency and neither did many
Congressional leaders."
Second, she says, "rightwing lobbies, such as industry associations
and ideological thinktanks, play a very significant role in influencing policy,
probably greater than they do in Europe."
Third, and most disconcertingly for Europeans, Claussen says: "This
US administration is different from any other in the extent to which it has
downgraded transatlantic relationships and European concerns."
Her first point helps explain why the Bush administration can employ
"greenwash" terminology that would be savaged in Britain if Margaret
Beckett, the environment secretary, tried it. Its repeal of the key "new
source review" provisions of the US Clean Air Act, under which old power
plants were required to install pollution reduction technologies whenever they
significantly upgraded their facilities, is officially known as the Clear Skies
programme. Yet, according to US environmental magazine Mother Jones, an extra
42m tonnes of air pollutants will be released over US towns and cities by 2020
as a result.
The so-called Healthy Forests initiative is Bush-speak for a new rule
allowing timber companies to log in previously protected forests. Parts of
Alaska's Tongass, one of the world's largest remaining temperate forests, are
earmarked for the bulldozers.
Although former US president Ronald Reagan was publicly derided for his
anti-environmentalism, US groups are unanimous that Bush's record is the worst
ever. Bush recently received an unprecedented F grade from the League of
Conservation Voters, which rates the performance of presidents and senior
politicians on environmental policies. Carol Browner, head of the US
Environmental Protection Agency under Bill Clinton, has described the Bush
regime as "simply the worst environmental administration ever".
The NRDC is scathing. "America's environmental protections have
never faced a threat as far-reaching, insidious and destructive as one posed by
the Bush administration and the new [Republican-dominated] Congress," says
Gregory Whetstone, NRDC's director of advocacy.
This time, the stakes are higher - not just for the US but for the
world. "The combination of circumstances prevailing today makes this
administration believe it can eviscerate existing legislation and simply not
respond to issues such as climate change, however much the rest of the world
presses them," says Claussen. "In Europe there are mandatory targets
and movement towards strategies to combat climate change, here there is nothing
but stonewalling."
Europe tackles environment agenda
By
Chris Morris, BBC Europe correspondent
Members of the
European Commission are meeting to discuss environmental policies in what
campaigners say is a "make or break moment".
The meeting will pit
pro-business commissioners against those who believe further regulation is
necessary to protect the environment.
The commission is
divided over how to balance green commitments with making the European economy
more competitive.
A number of
initiatives have been delayed while the debate takes place.
Choices
European Commission
President Jose Manuel Barroso called for a full debate on environmental policy
after he saw the details of a plan to tackle air pollution.
The costs would be
enormous - billions of euros every year. It would include new regulations which
industry says it doesn't need, but the plan would also prevent hundreds of
thousands of premature deaths and its supporters say it would save money in the
long-term by reducing healthcare costs and damage to agriculture.
So there are choices
to be made. There is no doubt that economic growth is this commission's top
priority, but environmental groups are warning that green polices could suffer
as a result.
Any
further delays, they say, would pose questions about the EU's role as a world
leader in sustainable development.
Séminaire Europe et environnement –
FNE – IDFE – 8 mai 2004 – actes – P 18 / 36
A Bruxelles, les groupes de
pression favorables et défavorables à l'environnement,
les rapports de force et les
capacités
d’influence sur la politique
environnementale de l’UE.
par Roberto Ferrigno,
Directeur du Bureau européen de
l’environnement.
Notes de séance et texte du rapport
du parlement.
Le BEE regroupe 144 associations
membres. C’est la plus ancienne association qui fait du
lobbying à Bruxelles depuis 1974.
La Commission elle même dit il y a
10.000 lobbyistes pour le secteur industriel donc 1
lobbyiste pour chaque fonctionnaire
de la communauté : la quasi-totalité travaille pour
l’industrie (industrie individuelle
ou regroupement industriel soit environ 1.400 compagnies
de partout dans le monde). Si l’on
compare avec les Etats-Unis, à Washington, il y a 16.000
lobbyistes. 700 personnes
travaillent pour le CEFIC donc plus que pour la direction
environnement qui représente 500
personnes. Nous ONG environnement (G8) environ 80
personnes.
On a fait une analyse des
consultations des parties prenantes. Entre 90 % et 99 % de tous
les commentaires sous forme de
documents papiers de dépositaires aux consultations
lancées par DG Environnement
proviennent de l’industrie. Entre 80 % et 99 % de tous les
participants aux réunions et
auditions organisées par le Parlement Européen ainsi que la
Commission sur les questions
environnementales sont des représentants des groupes
d'industries. Il y a environ 2,5
ans au Parlement Européen, le rapporteur avait effectué des
invitations : il y avait 56
représentants de l’industrie pour 1 représentant des associations
c’était le directeur du BEE.
Pour l’instant il n’y a pas de bons
Etat membre pour l’Environnement.
On peut faire autre comparaison
avec les Etats Unis. Il y a une tendance à ce que le lobby
soit plus opaque à Bruxelles.
Les parlementaires, les
fonctionnaires sont débordés. Les suivis de dossier demandent du
temps, les lobbyistes arrivent,
donnent des renseignements aux uns et aux autres et
essaient de combler les vides
d’informations y compris pour les fonctionnaires de la
Commission. Fournir au bon moment
l’information qui est forcément modelée sur les
intérêts que vous défendez !
Récemment le lobby des
représentants industriels s’est concentré sur le Parlement européen
; c’est l’institution la plus
ouverte.
L’environnement était toujours avec
le marché ; traiter les pollutions, traiter des déchets,
avoir des technologies propres,
tout cela représentait le développement de technologies, or
cela donne des marchés donc des
intérêts économiques notamment avec le marché des
traitements.
Maintenant que l’on dit que changer
de technologie ne suffit plus, qu’il faut s’interroger sur
les modèles de consommation,
intervenir sur la précaution … cela devient beaucoup plus
dérangeant.
Si vous voulez éliminer les
produits chimiques il faut des changements forts.
Tout le monde est obsédé par la
compétitivité or cela ne va pas souvent en faveur de
l’environnement.
Je vais vous lire à présent des
extraits du Rapport du Parlement Européen du 20/11/2003
sur le rôle des associations
industrielles européennes dans la définition des politiques de
l’Union (2002/2264(INI)). Cela
provient de la Commission de l’industrie, du commerce
Séminaire Europe et environnement –
FNE – IDFE – 8 mai 2004 – actes – P 19 / 36
extérieur, de la recherche et de
l’énergie, le rapporteur est Han-Peter Martin. C’est tout à
fait instructif.
« Pour les représentants d’intérêts
expérimentés, l’activité de lobbying la plus prometteuse
est celle qui est menée avant même
qu’un document n’ait été élaboré sur une question à
traiter. C’est ainsi qu’une
influence est par exemple exercée, à la Commission, sur
l’élaboration des livres verts et
des livres blancs avant même que ceux-ci n’aient été rédigés
et que les données du thème traité
par la Commission ne soient connues du grand public.
Au Conseil, l’activité de lobbying
s’exerce de préférence par l’intermédiaire des
gouvernements nationaux et, à
Bruxelles, également par l’intermédiaire des représentations
permanentes nationales, lesquelles
se disent isolées dans leur tour d’ivoire mais se montrent
ouvertement bien disposées à
l’égard des lobbyistes représentant les intérêts des grandes
entreprises. Les diplomates
deviennent ainsi des lobbyistes des groupes de pression.
A la Commission, il apparaît que
les groupes d’intérêts ont acquis encore plus d’influence
sous la présidence de Romano Prodi.
C’est ainsi que l’on évoque le cas de fonctionnaires qui
ont repris directement, de groupes
de pression industriels, les textes de propositions de
directive.
…
La reprise, notamment dans les
projets de textes législatifs, d’amendements souhaités par
l’industrie et présentés comme des
amendements personnels est une pratique qui a souvent
été décrite. Certains députés le
reconnaissent et se font ainsi les représentants directs des
intérêts de l’industrie.
…
Certes, la reconversion directe du
Commissaire Martin Bangemann dans le secteur des
télécommunications à la fin des
années 1990 a fait les gros titres, mais les activités
systématiques de lobbying auprès
des institutions européennes conduites par d’anciens
commissaires ou députés sont
souvent négligés. L’ancien commissaire chargé du commerce,
Leon Brittan, qui, en qualité de
président du groupe de haut niveau LOTIS a fait pression
auprès du gouvernement britannique
et de son ancienne DG à la Commission au profit de la
place financière de Londres, en est
un exemple.
Il arrive aussi que les députés en
activité s’engagent de manière ouverte auprès de groupes
de pression. L’obligation de faire
chaque année, auprès du Parlement, une déclaration
d’intérêts financiers ne suffit pas
pour assurer la transparence nécessaire. Le Parlement
devrait également procéder à un
débat sur les intergroupes à orientation industrielle. Des
ONG telles que « Corporate Europe
Observatory » et « GATSwatch » oeuvrent plus que le
Parlement lui-même en faveur d’une
plus grande transparence.
… »
Le Gouvernement du royaume uni a
envoyé une note pour que chaque parlementaire du
pays vote selon la volonté du
Gouvernement.
En conclusion vous le voyez la
situation n’est pas bien ; il faut garder la pression pour la
faire évoluer.
Séminaire Europe et
environnement – FNE – IDFE – 8 mai 2004 – actes – P 26 / 36
Table ronde avec des
députés européens
avec
Marie-Noëlle Lienemann (PS) ancienne députée
européenne et candidate
Alain Lipietz (Verts) député européen
et candidat
José Cambou, Secrétaire nationale
de FNE
Notes de séance.
José Cambou
Le manifeste
environnemental pour les élections européennes en 2004 co-rédigé par le « G8
environnemental » sera
téléchargeable dès lundi sur le site de FNE. Le « G8
environnemental » déjà
cité ce matin regroupe les associations :
- BirdLife
International dont est membre la Ligue de Protection des Oiseaux,
- Climate Action
Network au
quel appartient le Réseau Action Climat dont est membre
FNE,
- Bureau Européen de
l’Environnement dont est membre FNE,
- Amis de la Terre
Europe,
- Amis de la Nature
International,
- Greenpeace
International,
- Fédération Européenne
pour les Transports et Environnement dont est
membre FNE,
- WWF Europe.
Ce manifeste qui est un
« appel des huit plus importantes organisations environnementales
destiné aux partis et
aux militant(e)s politiques pour qu’ils accordent à l’environnement la
priorité qu’il mérite »
; je
vous propose donc en fonction de vos champs de compétence
d’échanger à partir des
différents thèmes qu’il aborde :
- biodiversité,
- produits chimiques,
d’autant que la contamination généralisée des milieux
augmente et de que plus
en plus de populations y sont exposées,
- agriculture (y
compris OGM et pesticides bien ques ceuu-ci appartiennent déjà
au point précédent),
- cohésion, est-elle
favorable à l’environnement, on pourrait aussi dans ce point
aborder éventuellement
les fonds européens,
- transports,
- changements
climatiques,
- déchets,
- commerce.
On pourrait aussi
éventuellement aborder la thématique fiscalité environnementale.
Enfin FNE, outre les
questions environnementales, s’intéresse aux aspects vie associative et
d’ailleurs participe au
CNVA (Conseil National de la Vie Associative). Nous voudrions voir
avancer le projet de
statuts d’association européenne ; pour la défense de certains milieux
cela nous aiderait.
Nous nous intéressons aussi aux Services d’intérêts généraux.
Alain Lipietz
Le niveau de
spécialisation à l’Union européenne est « effrayant » : il est impossible à
quiconque d’avoir une
vue d’ensemble ; l’UE est une machine à produire de la
réglementation. Chaque
député va donc se spécialiser sur quelques textes, aucun n’a une
vision globale de
toutes les directives européennes. De même les membres du G8
environnement sont tout
aussi spécialisés.
En matière de déchets,
je ne connais pas bien la question et je préfère m’abstenir de
commentaires.
Je participe notamment
:
Séminaire Europe et
environnement – FNE – IDFE – 8 mai 2004 – actes – P 27 / 36
" à la vie de
groupe parlementaire,
" à la commission
économique et monétaire,
" à la délégation
pour l’Amérique du Sud (notamment intéressé par les Andes),
" à l’OMPI qui
s’intéresse à la propriété intellectuelle des indigènes.
José Cambou
Je vous propose que
nous prenions par série de 3 thèmes et donc en premier : biodiversité,
produits chimiques et
agriculture.
Alain Lipietz
Biodiversité : J’ai
beaucoup suivi les négociations de la propriété intellectuelle et de la
biodiversité. La
biodiversité est structurée par les relations nord sud. La richesse est au sud
et les usines au nord.
Le nord doit payer le sud, et les indigènes pas seulement les Etats,
pour entretenir la
biodiversité. Nous ne pourrons passer un tel compromis que si nous
modifions nos
comportements : notre agriculture doit être « claire » et ne pas, par le
système des excédents,
déstructurer les agricultures locales. Les brevets sur les plantes des
indigènes (dont les
chamanes) attirent les multinationales. Le Parlement est favorable à
cette optique y compris
une partie substantielle de la droite … tant que cela n’engage à rien.
OGM : Le problème de
réalisation (compliance) maintenant que la directive OGM existe est
réel ; la séparation
des 3 filières (OGM, normal et bio) n’est techniquement pas réalisable en
raison des escrocs qui
vont vouloir frauder comme cela a été le cas pour les farines
animales. C’est une
raison pour s’opposer aux OGM car les contrôles sont illusoires. Quant à
la mise en oeuvre de la
directive OGM c’est un problème de droit interne.
REACH : Des
publications démontrent que toutes les maladies chroniques et le cancer sont
issues de la filière
alimentaire ou de l’environnement dégradé. Il existe plus de 150 000
produits chimiques, qui
n’ont pas subi de tests et dont les effets sur la santé sont donc
inconnus. On constate
que les Français associent santé et environnement. Un des enjeux
des élections porte sur
cette question ; on devrait voir l’équivalent du « feuilleton OGM» de
la mandature
précédente.
PAC : Même Jacques
Chirac qui a toujours été l’un de ses supporters renonce au concept de
productivité qui a
prévalu jusque là.
Marie-Noëlle Lienemann
Une simple culture
politique n’est pas suffisante pour suivre les débats de l’UE ; il y a une
incompréhension par le
public français de ce qui se passe à l’UE car les directives sont
transposées directement
par voie réglementaire et donc le débat ne se situe pas au niveau
des citoyens. Les
Français pensent que les décisions de l’UE sont techniques alors qu’elles
sont politiques.
Le rôle important des
ONG vis à vis des partis politiques est à souligner en matière de
formation, d’expertise
et de compétences ; il faut mettre de nouveaux liens entre les partis
politiques et les ONG.
Biodiversité : Le
problème est de faire adhérer la population aux enjeux ; nous avons besoin
de travailler à la
conviction. Il devrait y avoir une cohérence entre l’application Natura 2000
et le versement de
fonds européens dans une certaine mesure, à condition que les projets
soient dans une même
zone bien définie ; le risque de pénaliser des territoires en refusant
des aides économiques à
une région (pour une zone 1 par exemple à cause du retard d’un
point de vue
environnement dans une zone 2 de cette même région) est trop important.
Comment sanctionner de
manière plus efficace ?
Séminaire Europe et
environnement – FNE – IDFE – 8 mai 2004 – actes – P 28 / 36
Je suis contre la
brevetabilité du vivant, qui est le patrimoine commun de l’humanité et ne
doit pas être réservé à
quelques uns.
Produits chimiques :
J’ai été rapporteur de la directive cadre eau. L’interdiction absolue de
certains produits dans
les rejets a été difficile à obtenir.
L’agriculture : Elle
nécessitera toujours une forme de régulation politique, comme les
socialistes l’ont fait
avec les CTE (contrats territoriaux d’exploitation). La PAC : On est tous
d’accord sur le fait
qu’il faut la réorienter et moins de productivité. Les OGM, j’ai voté contre,
dans l’intérêt public ;
informer le consommateur « commun » par l’étiquetage n’est pas
suffisant car le libre
choix est illusoire surtout quand il y a des risques pour ceux qui ont un
faible pouvoir d’achat
ou un niveau socio-culturel insuffisant pour être sensibilisé. La
traçabilité est
illusoire ; il faut soutenir les agriculteurs mais pas le rendement ; le PS se
rapproche du CNJA et de
la confédération paysanne.
José Cambou
Abordons maintenant
trois autres thèmes : cohésion, transports, changements climatiques,
Ce qui ne vous empêche
pas de rebondir sur les premiers.
Alain Lipietz
Responsabilité
environnementale des entreprises : Il existe deux types de droit qui
cohabitent au sein de
l’Union Européenne. Le droit britannique, dit « common law » où il n’y
a pas de différence
entre le droit administratif le reste et celui du continent (où l’on
distingue le droit
administratif et de l’autre le droit civil et pénal. La directive était très
bien ; elle faisait la
somme de ces 2 approches juridiques. En France, la formule connue lors
du sang contaminé est «
responsable mais pas coupable ».
Aux USA il y a une
décharge signée par le vendeur de semence OGM envers l’agriculteur ;
en cas de pépin, de
contentieux l’agriculteur se retournera contre le fournisseur. L’assureur
est notre allié mais
l’assureur dit : on ne peut pas assurer des risques non évaluables et
notamment quand la
durée nécessaire pour la remise en état est inconnue. C’est le cas par
exemple pour les
insecticides Gaucho et Régent. Dans un tel mécanisme le paiement
devrait être effectué
jusqu’au retour des abeilles, si elles reviennent !
Dans la Directive de
responsabilité environnementale (UE), la « précaution » induit que le
gouvernement doit agir
dès qu’il y a un soupçon de risque probable. Dans le projet de
Charte de
l’environnement française, la « précaution » est définie comme une probabilité
de
risques irréversibles ;
c’est insuffisant c’est pourquoi je suis contre ce texte.
La Cohésion : Elle est
favorable à l’environnement ; il faut transmettre les technologies
propres le plus vite
possible aux pays les moins avancés. Par exemple une femme
tanzanienne produit 40
fois plus de GES qu’une femme japonaise lorsqu’elle cuisine ; la
tanzanienne doit
bénéficier d’une meilleure technologie.
Pour la Banque de
financement européen, nous exigeons qu’ils financent au moins 22 % en
énergies renouvelables.
La Banque de financement européen devrait soumettre au G8
environnement tous les
projets liés à l’environnement.
3 points sont
importants :
" choix des
techniques,
" directives sur
les quotas GES,
" fiscalité.
Au Parlement européen
nous n’avons aucune compétence en matière de fiscalité et cela ne
changera pas avec le
projet de constitution actuelle. Le traité de Nice est le « pire traité » ;
seule possibilité le «
cross retaliation », c’est à dire faire pression sur un thème qui impacte
l’aspect fiscal.
Séminaire Europe et
environnement – FNE – IDFE – 8 mai 2004 – actes – P 29 / 36
Marie-Noëlle Lienemann
A propos de
biodiversité je voulais rajouter la nécessaire réorientation de la pêche avec
un
enjeu halieutique,
c’est important.
La logique de la montée
en puissance assurantiel : Les pouvoirs bancaires et assurantiels
deviennent de plus en
plus lourds. On paie de plus en plus d’assurances et de moins en
moins de salaires. Que
prend-on comme risques en commun ?
Le système des quotas
est une « usine à gaz » ; les problèmes vont s’accroître et on ne
résoudra rien. Je pense
plus important que ceux qui ont des moyens développent de
nouvelles technologies
pour moins polluer ainsi ceux qui ont moins de moyens peuvent
ensuite y accéder à des
prix moins chers.
Le transport : le fret
par rail n’est pas rentable ; la dérégulation des transports génère une
augmentation de la
pollution. La dérégulation du transport du fret n’offre pas plus de
services au contraire
et donc il faut un « service public d’intérêt général ». Il y a des idées
qui avancent, même la
Commissaire Palacio réfléchit à la taxe au km parcouru et j’y suis
moi-même favorable.
La directive énergie
des bâtiments est importante. 40% des GES viennent de la
construction. Des
pistes pour faire de l’innovant existent, l’HQE par exemple. Greenpeace a
travaillé sur le
principe de maisons à impact énergétique nul.
La peur n’est pas le
meilleur levier pour faire évoluer ; pour faire prendre conscience, les
concepts d’harmonie et
de mieux vivre sont préférables
José Cambou
Le temps passe vite, il
nous faut donc accélérer. Nous avons convenu de ne pas aborder les
déchets. Restent
notamment les thèmes du commerce et de la vie associative.
Alain Lipietz
Je vous propose de
consulter mon site web pour toute information http://www.lipietz.net
Commerce international
: Le Parlement Européen n’a aucun contrôle et Pascal Lamy défend
les intérêts des
grandes compagnies, en tout cas c’est mon point de vues.
Les Associations :
Toutes les associations y compris les radicales doivent être écoutées ; il
est pour nous essentiel
de les consulter. En ce qui concerne un statut d’association
européenne : les
statuts différent selon les pays. Pour les associations, j’avais fait à la
demande du Gouvernement
un travail avec le CNVA : on doit fixer un cadre avec des
formules
autodéclaratives pour le niveau de subvention et le niveau de dispense d’impôts
et
de cotisations sociales
; le label est octroyé par les pairs ; en cas de litige le préfet peut
intervenir.
Marie-Noëlle Lienemann
Pour les associations
je suis pour la souplesse par rapport à la loi 1901 et pour l’émergence
d’association
européenne.
Je suis pour la
régulation par la loi plus que par l’arbitrage financier.
Quand une directive
n’est pas appliquée il y a distorsion de compétitivité. Il faut une
inspection européenne
avec un corps d’inspection européenne.
Sur le commerce
international, Pascal Lamy va au-delà de son mandat mais son mandat est
quand du libéralisme
terrible. La co-décision du mandat à l’OMC est à obtenir.
EU
cracks whip over environment
The European Commission has issued
a final warning to several EU member states for failing to comply with EU rules
on the environment.
The warning is the final step before the Commission
launches a case at the European Court of Justice.
Twelve countries were criticised for failing to
conduct proper environmental impact assessments for major projects.
Another eight - including the UK - were told to comply
over the disposal of electrical waste, such as old PCs.
The EU's top court can impose fines on countries which
are found to be in breach of EU directives.
The Commission says 12 countries - Austria, Belgium,
Cyprus, Greece, Spain, Finland, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Portugal
and Slovakia - have failed to implement the EU law on environmental impact
assessments.
Such assessments are made before new roads are built
or waste-management schemes approved.
The Commission says eight countries - Estonia,
Finland, France, Greece, Italy, Malta, Poland and the UK - have failed to
implement EU directives on the disposal of electrical waste.
"In the EU, electro-scrap is the fastest growing
waste stream, growing at 3-5% per year, which is three times faster than
average waste," a Commission statement said.
Published: Monday 30 August 2004
Many
Member States still not respecting EU environmental law
In
Short:
In 2003, over a
third of all complaints and ongoing infringement cases concerning
non-compliance with EU law were in the environment sector.
Brief
News:
Implementation of EU environmental law is
proving a really tough nut to crack for some of the old Member States.
Compliance varies from state to state, but France, Greece, Ireland, Italy and
Spain are among the worst offenders in the latest annual survey on the
implementation and enforcement of EU environmental law. The Nordic countries
and Portugal seem to have the least problems.
The survey states that in 2003, there were 88
cases in which environmental directives were not transposed on time. In 118
cases, the directives were not correctly transposed by the Member States and in
95 cases Member States did not even meet 'secondary' obligations (i.e.
nominating or designating certain protection areas for the purposes of the
directive). The directives in relation to water, waste, nature protection and
environmental impact assessment were the most neglected.
The environment sector represented last year
over a third of all complaints and ongoing infringement cases concerning
non-compliance with EU law. Between 1996 and 2001 the number of complaints rose
from 161 to 587. The number of ongoing infringement procedures related to
breaches of EU environmental law remains higher than 500 per year although
there has been a slight decrease during the last two years. The number of new
complaints in 2003 was 505 (555 in 2002).
Next year, the new Member States will figure
in the statistics for the first time. The EU is expected to take a tough line
in all policy areas to enforce the implementation of EU law in the new Member
States (See EurActiv 14 April 2004 ).
Bigger EU Could Affect Environmental Policies
Will an
expanded European Union continue to pursue aggressive environmental policies?
With 10 new member states (MS)—many with significant environmental
problems—joining the EU, experts expect major impacts on policy. Some predict
that EU environmental policy will stagnate as the new states struggle to implement
and comply with Western Europe’s tougher laws. Others say that future EU
policies could tend to more market-based approaches rather than old-fashioned
command-and-control laws.
EU’s
newest members, which joined the union in late May and raised the total
membership to 25, are Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia,
Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia, and Slovenia. The new states “have less of
a tradition of environmental management and could exert a downward pull on the
existing MS,” says Miranda Schreurs, a political scientist at the University of
Maryland. “For the next 5 to 10 years, the EU will probably focus on
implementing existing legislation rather than pushing forward with yet more
progressive laws,” she adds.
Despite
dramatic improvements in air and water quality in many former Soviet bloc
countries in Central and Eastern Europe—mainly because of economic
reform—substantial problems remain, particularly in the Czech Republic and
Poland. For example, while these states have moved away from heavily polluting
industrial and energy plants, they still depend heavily on coal. And the Baltic
states of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania lack adequate waste disposal
facilities and suffer from illegal waste dumping.
Andrew
Farmer of the Institute for European Environment Policy in London suggests that
the new states could put a hold on policy advances. “It’s not likely that new
MS will sign up to more legislation or be a major driver of future legislation,
and they could drag the whole EU back,” Farmer argues. He points out that if
the new states stick together, or team up with small states such as Portugal,
they could block a decision in the Environment Council of Ministers, the final
arbiter in the law-making process. “This gives them a very strong negotiating
position if they all agree.”
It also
seems clear that the enlarged EU will further embrace market-based approaches
rather than standards and deadlines, says Jacqueline Karas of the Royal
Institute of International Affairs in London. The new members tend to be
pro-business and anti-regulation because of their communist pasts, creating a
stronger voice for market-based mechanisms in new areas such as water quality,
she predicts. These accession states also could be a good testing ground for
new policy instruments, Schreurs adds, such as voluntary agreements for
eco-labeling and market mechanisms such as emissions trading and energy taxes.
Regardless
of approach, EU enlargement is expected to bring major environmental benefits
to the new MS. The accession countries, some with poor environmental protection
records, have agreed to strict EU laws and must pass national laws that
implement the EU’s directives. “These countries, with their levels of economic
development, would not have adopted this type of legislation otherwise,” says
Schreurs.
All the
new MS have submitted step-by-step implementation plans and have to report on
their progress to the European Commission (EC). Officials say that the
accession countries are mostly on track to implement EU environmental
legislation. However, EU officials note that some countries, which they won’t
name, need to do “significant work” on waste management.
In the
meantime, the EU has agreed to let all the MS transition to the tougher laws,
mainly for regulation of water, waste, and industrial pollution. These
transitional plans differ by country and include legally binding and
non-negotiable intermediate targets and deadlines. For example, Latvia and
Hungary have until 2015 to meet urban wastewater treatment requirements,
Estonia and Lithuania must comply with air pollution requirements on large
combustion plants by 2015, and Cyprus and Czech Republic are expected to meet
recovery targets for packaging waste in 2005. The EC will apply its normal
enforcement procedures if countries don’t comply.
Karas
has been surprised at the level of progress so far and says that the
governments of several countries are trying really hard to implement the EU
laws through their own national laws. Poland passed an Environmental Protection
Act in 2001, for example, and set renewable energy targets to expand its share
of renewable energies from 0.7% of all energy sources in 2001 to 7.5% by 2010.
“But,” she adds, “it remains to be seen how rapidly [the EU regulations] will
happen.”
Complying
with EU environmental law will require significant investment. The EC estimates
it will cost the 10 MS €80–110 billion in total, or on average 2–3% of the EU’s
GDP in the coming years. The EU has been providing environmental aid since 2000
and tripled that amount in May to €8 billion, which is around 10% of the new
MS’s investment requirements until 2006. Other financial sources include
international institutions like the European Investment Bank, private groups,
and consumer charges, such as fees on water and taxes.
However,
current expenditures are generally well below the target amount. For example,
Poland, which is the most populous of the new MS, currently spends only about
half the old, 15-member EU average on environmental protection, says Schreurs.
“The Polish government has estimated that it must spend €40 billion—one year’s
total budget—in the coming years to comply with EU environmental standards,”
points out Schreurs. “The EU will provide perhaps €6 billion. It remains a big
question where the rest will come from. Emissions trading will help, increased
fuel taxes will help, but they will only make a small dent. There is reason for
some of the skepticism that is out there about the ability of new MS to meet EU
standards.”
Most
nongovernmental aid agencies agree. According to a survey of nongovernmental
organizations (NGOs) in the new MS by the European Environment Bureau (EEB), an
umbrella organization of environmental NGOs, inadequate funding and a lack of
administrative resources are the biggest impediments to bringing about
environmental and legal change. EEB’s Mara Silina says the public sector cannot
compete with industry when it comes to salaries for the talented people needed
to build up the necessary ministries, monitoring agencies, and inspectorates.
“It is a big problem that environment agencies and ministries are often small
and weak,” warns Schreurs. “A small number of bureaucrats must learn a vast
body of law and try to implement it without adequate resources.”
This
article first appeared in the Online News section of Environmental
Science & Technology.