PRESS-RELEASE

COMMISSION'S TEN YEAR ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME
LACKS TEETH

(Brussels, January 24, 2001) In its first reaction, the European Environmental Bureau, responded with disappointment to the 6th Environmental Action Programme presented today by the European Commission. The EEB, largest federation of environmental citizens organisations in the EU and accession countries, regretted the absence of clear targets and timetables in most policy fields, therewith repeating the mistake of the previous Programme. While it also saw positive elements, it missed an overall visionary and ambitious tone, a commitment to leadership for making a real difference, relying instead a lot on voluntary co-operation of business.

On the absence of targets in the draft legal text, underpinning the Programme, John Hontelez, Secretary General, said:
"Ministers, Parliamentarians, environmental organisations have said for years that EU's environmental policy must be guided by clear objectives, translated into quantified environmental targets and timetables. These would be the teeth of the Commission towards Member States and business, clarifying the dimension of the mandate to push for ambitious policies that really make a difference. However, the Commission has chosen NOT to ask for such teeth from Council and Parliament. It shows how low the awareness of the seriousness of the environmental problems still is inside the Commission."

The Programme itself, not for formal adoption by the Council and the Parliament, does contain objectives, often rather general and up for multi-interpretation, but few concrete targets and timetables.
In one area at least, it even gives up a target that were set in the previous programme.  The targets to reduce air-pollution to the "critical loads ecosystems can absorb without damage" and to "safe exposure levels for human beings" are replaced now by the vague objective of "levels that do not give rise to unacceptable impacts on, and risks to, human health and the environment". Hontelez: "such a formulation DOES give rise to endless debates about what is unacceptable. We know industry is very good at that".

Another weak point is that many actions are foreseen in still to be developed "thematic strategies", for which no deadlines are given.

The EEB did find several positive points in the Programme. This includes its recognition of the EU's global responsibility, the de-coupling of economic growth from natural resource use and environmental degradation, and four clear priority areas to focus on. It also welcomes the commitment of the Commission to get tougher on violators of EU Environment legislation and to implement the Aarhus Convention rules set for transparency, public participation and access to justice. And it is looking forward to "effective environmental impact assessments of new policy proposals" as promised. 
Furthermore it welcomes the plans to promote clean production via public procurement, but it needs to see still whether this will be limited to products only rather than to the entire production process as well. The aim to activate a debate on a strategy on soil protection is very much welcomed.

The EEB wants to see more ambition to promote environmental taxation reform. In some places the Programme foresees specific initiatives, but, according to Hontelez, "The Commission seems not to have bright plans to overcome the resistance of some Member States, backed by powerful companies, who after the Nice Summit can continue to veto EU-environment taxes. Instead it hopes for voluntary co-operation with industry and beauty contests. This will never have the same impact as a taxation system that systematically rewards environmentally responsible behaviour and punishes the opposite, both producers and consumers." 

On climate change, the first sector of attention, the EEB welcomed the presentation of the issue and the long term objectives. But it finds the 2020 target of 20-40% for the world at large vague and non-committing for the EU. It welcomes the announcement that the EU intends unilateral action to reduce greenhouse gases from aviation if on a global level, in ICAO, no action is agreed by 2002.

The EEB welcomes the priority of resource efficiency as a multi-purpose environmental policy. But it regrets that the Commission has shied away from an ambitious target here, like a Factor 4 by 2010 and Factor 10 by 2020. Such "teeth" are indispensable to overcome the resistance to the policies needed to make such quantum leaps. It supports the measures proposed in a Thematic Strategy, but wants a clear date by which this Strategy is to be in force.

The EEB is concerned that the proposed waste policy, while having positive elements like producer responsibility and focus on prevention, is in fact preparing for a larger role of incineration (called "energy recovery").

The EEB finds too little recognition of the likelihood that in the next 10 years a large number of Central and Eastern European countries will join. Exception is agriculture, but the Commission is much too optimistic that damage can be prevented within the framework of the current Common Agriculture Policy. The enormous opportunities and threats in the energy and transport sectors as well as biodiversity lead to few specific actions in the Programme.

The EEB also notes that an initial proposal to have a systematic integration of environmental objectives in the use of EU's financial operations has not reached the finish. Another telling example on how certain Commissioners want to keep their room for manoeuvring, even if this damages the environment. 

Finally, the Programme also mentions a number of areas where concrete proposals are in the pipeline for several years already. This includes environmental liability, review of the Chemicals policy and a new strategy on air pollution. Hontelez: "while the descriptions confirm a positive attitude, the proof is in the pudding. The first pudding to be served in a few weeks time, with the long awaited proposal for a new chemicals policy".

Further information:

John Hontelez, tel. 02-289.1095