EEB
PROPOSALS TO STRENGTHEN THE 6TH ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROGRAMME
26.02.2001
INTRODUCTION
In this paper
the European Environmental Bureau comments on the 6th Environmental
Action Programme and presents its proposals to improve the draft
"Decision of the European Parliament and of
the Council, laying down the Community Environment Action Programme
2001-2010".
The paper is
divided in two separate parts:
a.
Critique on the Programme and
conclusions for improvement, leading to:
b.
Concrete proposals for amendments on
the Decision.
Editors are
John Hontelez and Christian Hey, Secretary General and EU-Policy Director of
the EEB. The product is a result of inputs from EEB members from all over the
EU.
This paper
should not be considered as exhaustive, and we are looking forward to
complementary contributions from other environmental organisations.
GENERAL COMMENTS
The Programme
has the attractiveness of choosing 4 priority areas of work that are indeed
important for the future of the EU and appeal to the public:
·
Climate Change
·
Nature and
Bio-diversity
·
Environment
and Health
·
Sustainable
use of natural resources and management of waste
In these areas
there is a good description of the nature and dimension of the challenges and
it describes the kinds of measures the EU and its Member States need to take to
address these. It is also rightfully underlining that the problems are worsened
partly because existing EU legislation is not always properly enforced, and
makes the fight for full practice of agreed legislation a priority for the
coming years.
GUIDING PRINCIPLES
It is strange
to see the guiding principles for environmental policy making presented in the
very last paragraph of the Programme, where it reminds of what is already laid
down in the Treaty of the European Union:
·
precautionary
principle
·
rectification
of pollution at source
·
priority for
preventative action
·
the
requirement that all policy areas take full and proper consideration of the
EU’s environmental objectives.
In addition,
the Commission proposes to “explore the possible application on a broader
basis” of “substitution” and “reversal of the burden of proof”.
The EEB supports the last proposals, but would
have liked to see that these two principles were already applied throughout the
6th Programme. The two new principles are essential for managing risks more
effectively. They play a key role in the new chemicals policy. Comparative
assessment (the substitution principle) may become a key driver for
environmental innovation. The reversal of the burden of proof is a key tool to
put precaution into practice and to balance the rights between victims and
polluters.
The prevention and precautionary principles
should not be compromised by the domination of the cost-benefit and sound
knowledge requirements. In environmental, human health and biodiversity matters
the benefits are often difficult to quantify. Where linear cause-effect
relation ships are difficult to get established, any economic assessment of
benefits is associated with large uncertainties. Therefore the responsibility
to make political decisions should not be delayed and diluted by insisting on
economic cost benefit analysis.
OBJECTIVES,
TARGETS, TIMETABLES
The
Programme presents general objectives, which are partly included in the draft
decision as well. These general objectives are not specific enough to function
as starting point for action plans with a given timetable. It is regrettable
that the Commission did not follow the repeated calls for quantified targets
and timetables, from the European Parliament, the Environment Ministers
Council, and environmental organisations. Quantified targets and timetables can
only be found for climate change (but see comments below) and waste management.
The EEB is convinced that such targets and timetables are necessary in
particular in the Decision, to clarify the dimension of the challenge for the
coming 10 years, to show the urgency involved. They are needed to give
environmental policies a chance when they are being opposed with narrowly
defined economic or single market arguments. They would give the Commission a
much clearer mandate to propose and take measures that correspond with the
environmental needs.
In 1999, the EEB presented "Ten Benchmarks for
Environmental Policy Integration" to illustrate how the EU can identify
targets, objectives and indicators that are appealing to senior policy makers
and the general public and that can trigger action programmes with a clear focus.
Commissioner
Wallström, on behalf of the Commission, has responded in several occasions that
presenting such targets and timetables would take the attention away from the
discussion on actions. The discussion would focus on the scientific
justifications of these targets and timetables. The EEB disagrees. While
scientific arguments help to determine the dimension, like the work done by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or the World Health Organisation,
targets and timetables in the end must be political decisions, based on a
combination of available scientific evidence, the application of the prevention
and precautionary principles and priority setting in cases of conflicting
interests.
In one
area, on airpollution, we regret that the Commission has even stepped away from
targets that were set by the previous Environmental Programme, namely, to
reduce air pollution to the “critical loads” ecosystems can absorb without
damage and to "safe exposure levels” for human beings. These two targets,
that have a scientific background, are replaced by the vague and subjective aim
to reach “levels that do not give rise to unacceptable impacts on, and risks
to, human health and the environment". The same problem of vagueness and
subjectivity is connected with the concept of “sustainable use”.
The EEB therefore proposes environmental quantified targets
and timetables for introduction in the Decision. Some of these targets are already mentioned in the Programme
(e.g. the climate change targets), others are derived from existing international
agreements (OSPAR, Chemicals). Finally
some targets are intended to give guidance on the dimension of change especially in the field of waste management
and resource efficiency. The quantitative targets for reduction of disposal as
suggested by the Commission can be achieved by implementing existing directives
and lack ambition.
In its amendments to the Decision, article 2, the EEB
proposes, among others, the following targets and timetables:
Greenhouse Gas
Reductions: Minimum 30% by 2020 on basis of 1990 level
Biodiversity: a halt
to decline by 2010
Chemicals:
phase-out
of all hazardous chemicals so that environment is free from them by 2020
Noise Reduction: 50%
by 2010
Pesticides: drastic
reduction of use, and phase out in non-commercial use by 2010
Pesticides: specific
hazardous ones phased out by 2005
Airpollution:
re-introduction of the critical loads and safe human exposure levels
Resource Efficiency:
Factor 4 by 2010, Factor 10 by 2020
Reduction Waste to
Final Disposal: 40% in next 10 years
Reduction Waste
production: 20% in next 10 years
Renewable Energy
Sources: at least 12% by 2010
Elimination of environmentally
negative subsidies by 2005
Furthermore, the EEB introduces a number of deadlines for
actions in order to have clarity about the mandate and task of the Commission
in the coming years.
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY INTEGRATION
Another major
concern is the lack of clarity on how the Commission aims to vigorously
implement Article 6 of the Treaty, which implies that all EU policies need to
integrate environmental concerns. The 5th Environmental Action
Programme in 1993 made a strong plea for such integration in 5 key economic
sectors (agriculture, energy, industry, tourism and transport). It is true that
in the analyses and part of the actions, the integration element is implicitly
present, but neither the role of DG ENV nor the responsibilities of the other
DGs are well defined.
EEB
would like to see stronger commitment for environmental policy integration. We
would like to see a more central role for DG Environment, the Environmental Council,
the Environmental Committee of the EP and Civil Society in the integration
process. We suggest the elaboration of a “Common Framework for Environmental
Integration” based on work of the European Environmental Agency, by the year
2002, and the implementation of that framework by 2003. The application of
Strategic Environmental Assessment, as laid down in the new directive, and the
involvement of the public need to become part of the design of Community
policies with significant potential environmental effects. Targets, with
timetables and regular review processes, need to be set, as well as clear
institutional and decision-making structures established which guarantee
effective environmental policy integration. See amendments to Article 3,
paragraph 2.
ENLARGEMENT
The
Programme does not look in a systematic way to the consequences of the
enlargement of the EU with 12 countries in the next 10 years, so within the
scope of the Programme. In some areas there are suggestions, but they seldom
lead to proposals for actions. The Programme does not discuss the possibility
that the characters of the economies and societies that join need to lead to
different kinds of actions (more legislation, less voluntary instruments?) and
special priority campaigns to prevent negative impacts of the accession.
Exception is agriculture, where a proposal is made to see whether a large part
of the new countries can be defined as eligible for agri-environmental
financial support. The Programme does not go further than raising the option,
no specific actions are foreseen. The Decision only foresees more dialogue with
the administrations in the accession countries, and co-operation with NGOs in
these countries to raise awareness. These are important by themselves, but not
sufficient.
In a set of amendments adding paragraph 10 to article 3, The
EEB suggests a number of actions to ensure that the enlargement of the European
Union will have a positive impact on the countries concerned, the EU will
develop:
-
By mid 2002, a critical review of the orientation and practical use of
pre-accession funds and the instruments of the cohesion policy after accession
in order to ensure a maximum contribution for sustainable development and
prevent any negative impact on the environment. This includes: re-orientation
of ISPA towards urban public transport systems and small-scale environmental
projects. Re-orientation of SAPARD towards environmentally sound and biological
forms of agriculture. For PHARE it means more emphasis on supporting the pre-conditions
for an effective environmental policy, based on able administrations and active
environmental citizens organisations.
-
By mid 2002, in advance of a major general reform of the Common Agriculture
Policy of the Union, develop a special policy, for the Accession countries,
attractive for the vast majority of its farmers, focussed at preventing
deterioration of its biodiversity, the impoverishment of its rural areas,
increase of water quality and quantity problems and chemical exposure.
-
An open and ongoing dialogue between the EU and accession countries and their
public organisations on the environmental quality of the accession process.
PROPOSED ACTIONS
However
clear and distinct the multitude and acuteness is brought to the attention, the
Sixth Environmental Action Programme falls short when it comes to remedy them.
The Programme includes a wide
range of actions of which part are ongoing or in the pipeline already. Parts of
these are mentioned in the Decision as well, in particular where the Commission
finds it important or needed to get the agreement of the Parliament and
Council. Most of these actions however are merely to (further) develop tools
for encouragement of voluntary action, for measuring progress, for spreading
knowledge on best practice and awareness, for bringing stakeholders together to
agree on policies. And there are six Thematic Strategies foreseen, for which no
timetable is given. In combination with the absence of clear targets and
timetables, this soft approach does not give us any guarantee that in 10 years
from now the environment will be substantially better of than it is today.
The
EEB suggests on a number of issues a more committing and binding language,
which gives more clarity about the level of ambition or the type of action
needed. As a general principle, all Thematic Strategies should be ready for
adoption in 2002.
ROLE OF LEGISLATION
The Programme
builds upon the trend set by the previous Programme to focus less on regulation
and more on market instruments, multi-stakeholder dialogue and voluntary
agreements. While the EEB agrees that not all problems can be solved with
regulation, we do think the value of this approach should not be
underestimated. In particular in cases of irreversible damage to biodiversity
and of threats to human health, and in cases where there is a necessity of
clear signals to economic players and the public legislation is needed.
The
EEB suggests in the Decision to add 11 additional legislative measures to the
ones proposed by the Commission. Most of these additional measures are already
being prepared or drafted inside the Commission or required by framework
legislation. To prevent slow down or vulnerability to actions to prevent them,
they should be mentioned by the Decision. The EEB furthermore suggests an
unspecified number of directives for several other priority waste streams in
order to continue apply the Producer Responsibility Principle.
The
EEB also suggests a number of Communications preparing legislation, for example
to resolve the problems related to PVC production and use.
MARKET INSTRUMENTS
In addition to
that, one can say that the main failure of the 5th Programme was
that it did not manage to make the market work for the environment. The 6th
Programme is a new attempt to do so. One can find, throughout the Programme,
several proposals with this potential, including: fiscal incentives to promote
eco-labelled products, greening procurement, environmental liability,
CO2-emission trading scheme, removal of environmentally problematic subsidies,
support to renewable energy sources, energy taxation, pesticides tax, eco-taxes
on resource- and waste-intensive products and processes.
The proposals found in the Programme form an interesting
package, and the decision on the 6th
Programme must really support this and ensure that the veto that the Nice
Summit maintained for individual Member States will not pose a problem.
The EEB still, in spite of the political obstacles
(unanimity) considers an encompassing EU framework for environmental tax reform
as a primary tool for environmental, notably climate, policy, and thus calls on
Commission and Council to relaunch their attempts at energy tax harmonisation
with a two-tier-approach: 1) last attempt at a unanimous decision, 2)
alternatively, introducing energy tax harmonisation – at a more ambitious level
– by using the new instrument of strengthened co-operation. With regard to
emissions trading, the EEB cautions the EU to aim at the installation of a
sound rather than a politically seemingly ”expedient” system.
Furthermore, EEB asks for more clarity about the scope of
greening public procurement. There should be no general veto against including
requirements related to the production phase of a product. The Decision must
clearly establish that in the EU, on the national and the EU level,
environmentally damaging subsidies are abolished by the year 2005.
STANDARDISATION
While
standardisation by private bodies is having an increasing role in environmental
policy making, the process and the standards continue to have serious
environmental shortcomings. The packaging standards the European
Standardisation Committee (CEN) produced last year, are a clear example. The
Environmental Council and the European Parliament have repeatedly expressed their
concerns, but so far the changes made in the CEN are superficial.
The EEB calls for a credible strategy to green
standardisation based upon a legal framework and adequate NGO participation. In
an amendment to the Decision, the EEB now calls for a moratorium for applying
the "new approach" for environmental policy as long as essential
conditions are not met (Article 3, par. 2).
VOLUNTARY AGREEMENTS
The Commission
remains optimistic about the environmental impact voluntary agreements can
have. This optimism remains unfounded, as is also shown in recent research by
the OECD and other European research networks. The Programme does say they have
to “conform to stringent criteria in
terms of clear objectives, transparency and monitoring and have to be effective
in achieving ambitious environmental objectives. Clear rules should be
established for the procedure of negotiating and concluding such agreements.”
Such criteria indeed reduce the chance that a voluntary agreement is just an
escape route for industry, but they are not sufficient by themselves to ensure
that it will have an added value compared with other instruments. And for the
EU level there is still considerable legal doubt that the Commission is
entitled to make agreement that are mutually binding. Furthermore there are
serious doubts the Commission has sufficient negotiation power to drive
industry towards ambitious agreements.
The EEB therefore rejects the present “gentlemen’s
agreements type” of EU voluntary agreements and strongly suggests to embed any
voluntary commitment in a legal framework with clear targets, monitoring
mechanisms and sanctions as well as the full participation of the Parliament,
the Council and NGOs.
MULTI-STAKEHOLDER
DIALOGUE
The Commission
is determined to work closely with stakeholders in coming to decisions on
policies. In principle the EEB supports this. However, it wants the Commission
to realise that stakeholders in society have different strengths, and that in
particular multinationals, federations of business and industry, banks, etc.
have much more possibilities for dominance over decisions and implementation
than organisations that work for the common good. As this inequity is
structural, the EEB is not in favour of a withdrawing state, it sees the state
as having an important role in steering society and bringing balance between
stakeholders. This is also a matter of democratisation, as citizens
organisations usually can count with more confidence with the public than
governments or business.
The EEB wants the Decision to include concrete
commitments to address the structural inequity between stakeholders. This
includes the enabling of environmental citizens organisations to have some real
impact in stakeholder dialogues and in public awareness campaigns. Furthermore
in the coming years, a stronger involvement of environmental NGOs in other
sectors, the sustainability strategy and EU external politics should be
encouraged and supported.
CLIMATE CHANGE
Climate change
is rightfully one of the four priority areas. The EEB welcomes the clear notion
that the Kyoto target is just the start of the road we need to follow: a
dramatic reduction of fossil fuel use, a reduction of at least 70% globally.
EEB prefers the widely accepted target of –80% until 2050. The Commission also
makes it clear that given the high contribution/capita to the problem, the EU
must take the lead in reducing emissions, thus also taking the lead towards
global environmental equity. The Commission rightfully presents a further
target, beyond Kyoto, for the year 2020. However, the target is rather
strangely formulated: ”a global reduction
in the order of 20 – 40% (depending on the actual rates of economic growth and
thus greenhouse gas emissions as well as the success of measures taken to combat
climate change) over 1990 by 2020 will need to be aimed at, by means of an
effective international agreement.” The EEB considers the – at first side
rather wide-ranging – goal of minus 20-40% as well chosen, on the basis of
realpolitic and the current EU burden sharing, but considers the signal as too
weak considering the need for more drastic reductions in the longer term. The
EEB considers the link to economic growth as misleading. What is needed are
absolute greenhouse gas reductions
compared to today’s situation irrespective of any growth rates or
recessions. Regarding the conditionality on an effective international
agreement, the EEB echoes the demand of other NGOs active in the field of
climate policy that the EU needs to unilaterally bind itself to the targets
which it has presented during international climate negotiations, both to
promote climate implementation policies ”at home”, and to give new impetus to
international negotiations.
Important as
well is the notion of energy demand management as core element of energy
policy, but the Commission is too careful and vague in its handling of
subsidies that encourage fossil fuel use. Also, the 6th EAP both in
its binding and non-binding part is lacking adequate wording and measures on
the problem of GHG emissions from transport.
Generally, the
current approach to the ECCP is incoherent, lacks impetus and political will,
and thus needs to be strengthened over the next years. In this context, a
clearer answer to the political implications of and responsibilities under the
burden sharing, especially the common policies and measures, needs to be found.
The EEB proposes to include a 30-40% reduction target in the
Decision in order to support the Programme and therewith give the Commission a
mandate to start preparing a strategy to that effect. It also proposes to
include a clear objective, the setting of incentives and sanctions and the
identification of responsible actors to remove subsidies with a negative
greenhouse impact.
See our amendments to Art. 2 and Art. 4.
BIODIVERSITY
The problems are alarming, the objectives are vague, targets are
missing and the actions envisaged are in no relation to it. The decision to
develop a thematic strategy on soil protection is welcome. The notion that the
revision of the Common Fisheries Policy must lead to the greater integration of
environmental concerns essential.
The EEB wants to see the
explicit target of respecting the natural carrying capacity of ecosystems in
the decision. Due to the considerable delays of implementation it also wants to
see at least the confirmation of the legally binding date for the full
implementation of the Habitat Directive and Natura 2000. Furthermore there
should be an ambitious timetable for halting the decline of habitat and extinction
of species. See our amendments to Art. 2 and Art. 5
Biodiversity
will remain under threat from agriculture if the EU Common Agriculture Policy
is not reformed much more than agreed in 1999. The Programme spreads
unjustified optimism about the impact that reform will have. The reform process
must be deepened and obligatory environmental conditions attached to any
support (cross compliance).
The EEB wants the Decision to set a trend towards an
agriculture policy that no longer subsidises intensification at the expense of
the environment. See amendment to Art. 6., par. 4.
HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT
New
policies to reduce the risk of exposure to hazardous chemicals is rightly an
important part of the 6th Programme. Three weeks after the presentation of the
6th Programme, the White Paper on Chemicals came out (13/2/2000). The 6th
Programme did describe in general terms what the Commission is up to, and
indeed the White Paper confirms that it aims for a major improvement.
The system as
suggested by the Commission covers only a part of all marketed chemicals and
does not systematically address low volume chemicals with high concern. It
lacks an effective sanction system, when the deadlines for registration and
evaluation are exceeded. A third concern is, that the scope for the
authorisation is too limited, not including PTB substances or Allergens, and
hormone disrupting substances only if they have also CMR effects. Last not
least the system shifts too much responsibility to industry even to assess substances
of high concern. This might undermine the effectiveness of the whole system.
The EEB suggests in its amendments (to
Art. 3 and 6) that some of the targets and deadlines of the White Paper are
incorporated into the Action Programme to give them more political weight. It
also presents proposals to strengthen the REACH system the Commission is
proposing, so that the shortcomings are addressed already in the 6th
EAP, giving orientation to the chemicals policy review.
Water and air
protection policies also form part of this priority area. The principles and
Water Framework Directive, adopted in 2000, seems to form the basis for the
Programme, but represents only an incomplete repetition. We miss a much needed
initiative on groundwater as well as on thedestruction of habitat
conditions and alterations of hydro-morphological conditions, which are a major
threat of the aquatic environment nowadays.
We also
miss quantitative targets for further emission reduction of air pollutants.
Finally, we want to see the concept of prevention of
deterioration of “high ecological status waters” and maintenance and
improvement of water depended ecosystems reinforced in the Decision. A new
objective has to be introduced to ensure that hydro-morphological impacts of
human activities on aquatic ecosystems are reduced. A “new water management
approach” is needed in order to control existing and new abstractions and
modifications. This new management approach should help to achieve the
objectives of the Water Framework Directive. See amendments under art. 6 par. 4
A third
element of the health and environment part is on noise. Noise is an often
underestimated problem for human health and nature. Given that we work with one
market, with harmonised rules for machines, common roles for noise make sense.
A 50% reduction of people regularly affected by
significant levels of noise is another concrete target the EEB proposes, to be
laid down in a daughter directive. See amendment to insert par. 6 to article 6.
Furthermore, the EEB requires a significant reduction of
pesticides use in the next 10 years, with a complete phasing out in
non-commercial fields, and to re-introduce the critical loads and safe exposure
levels for human beings for air pollution. See amendments to art. 6, par. 3
RESOURCE EFFICIENCY AND WASTE
The EEB
agrees with the Commission that a policy to make our economy less dependent on
the use of fossil fuels and other materials will have multiple benefits for the
environment. So de-materialisation and de-coupling are good concepts. However,
the de-coupling must be so ambitious that there is a real net reduction, not
just a slowing down of the increase of resource use.
The EEB proposes to give profile to the
de-materialisation objective to introduce the Factors 4 (in 2010) and Factor 10
(in 2020) in the Decision. See amendments to art. 3.
It should be
clear that these factors refer to raw resource use. Re-use and re-cycling are
ways to contribute to de-materialisation. The 6th Programme underlines the
waste policy approach it has been following in the last decade. This has not
led to absolute reductions in waste streams, and the new, quantified objectives
mentioned in the Programme are not very ambitious. But it is important that the
Commission keeps and reinforces the current track, rather than follows a new
one. Extended ProducersResponsibility,
enforcement of the waste hierarchy are important elements.
The EEB proposes quantified reduction targets for disposal
and for waste-generation, and constant improvement of energy recovery
techniques, following the Best Available Technology approach and creating a
fair economic level playing field for different options of burning waste. It is also demanding a White Paper on how to
substitute PVC, and new policies on mining waste. See amendments to article 3
and 7.
HUMAN RESOURCE NEEDS
The
Commission presents a number of ambitious projects, and the EEB wants even more
realised. This is justified by the seriousness and the toughness of the
problems that need tackling. This should not be dismissed by general resistance
against increase of staff for public services. Environmental policies are
discredited with the public if they are not up to date or not consistently
implemented.
Furthermore,
environmental citizens organisations have played a crucial role in mobilising
the public, making issues ripe for political decisionmaking, improving the
quality and acceptability of legislation and other measures, as well as
enforcement. It is justified that the Commission supports, and aims to continue
support such general interest organisations, in particular on the European
level, where own resources are scarce.
The EEB has therefore introduced amendments in
Article 3 to promote increase of staff capacities in the Commission and Member
States in specific areas as well on support to citizens organisations.
B. EEB’S SUGGESTED
AMENDMENTS FOR THE
Proposal for a
DECISION OF
THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
Laying down
the Community Environment Action Programme
2001-2010
(Presented by
the Commission)
THE EUROPEAN
PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION.
[….]
Whereas:
(1)
A clean an healthy environment is essential fort he 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 September 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. It also sets a
number of longer term targets and timetables in order to clarify the dimension
of the actions needed in the period of this programme.
(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 and sectoral policies is essential,
and required by Article 6 of the Treaty, 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 absolute de-coupling
of economic growth from emissions in combination
with a societal reconsideration of the definitions of “growth”
and “prosperity”.
(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.
(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
complexity of the issues, need to be based on sound scientific and economic
assessment, including external costs, and the precautionary
principle, and 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 need 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, the prevention,
precaution, the polluter pays and the substitution principles,
and the global responsibility of the EU to keep its material and energy
consumption within the carrying capacity of the global environment.
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:
–
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 further
cutting emissions inside the EU of
at least 30% significantly
by 2020 from 1990 levels.
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 by reducing emissions to levels not exceeding the
natural carrying capacity of ecosystems.
–
Protection of soils against erosion, and
pollutionand
desertification.
–
Protection of biological diversity, in line with the
Community’s bio-diversity strategy.
Endangered species should remain in viable
populations in the long run, and should be given a chance to spread to new
locations in their natural areas of living.
–
Protection of bio-diversity and landscape values across the
rural areas of the Community.
–
Further implementation
of nature conservation areas in the EU, within the
Natura 2000 network, and extending this to accession countries.
–
A halt to biodiversity
declineon genetic,
species, populations and ecosystem levels in the EU by 2010.
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,
including of vulnerable groups, and nature. The Programme
specifically aims at:
–
Achieving better understanding of the threats to human
health;
–
Requesting
data for 30.000 substances, from producers, by certain dates (as outlined in
the White Paper on the new chemicals strategy), whereby failure to submit the
date in time will lead to prohibition of further marketing of the substances
concerned.
–
Assessing all chemicals produced in relevant quantities in a
step by step approach with clear target dates, and
deadlines and credible enforcement mechanisms(as
outlined in the White Paper on the new chemicals strategy),
by 2012, starting with the high production volume chemicals and
chemicals of particular concern, to be assessed
by 2005.
–
Basing the
assessments and evaluation of chemicals on the precautionary principle
where there is scientific uncertainty in order to avoid excessive use of
animals for testing and to prevent damage to human health and the environment.
–
A general
phase-out of all hazardous chemicals (i.e. chemicals that are persistent,
liable to bio-accumulate, or toxic) as
such or in products, so that the
environment as far as possible is free from such substances by 2020.
–
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 significant
overall reduction in the use of pesticides. Use of pesticides
that are persistent or expected to bio-accumulate should be abolished
by 2005.
–
Achieving levels of good water
quality that do not give rise to significant
negative impacts on and risks to human
health and the environment in all surface water bodies, to
ensure that hydromorpholigical impacts of human activities on acquatic
ecosystems are reduced and to ensure that the rates of extraction
from water resources are sustainable over the long term
–
Achieving levels of air quality that, by 2020,
do no longer not give
rise to significant impacts on and risks to human health and environment. exceed
critical levels and loads for air and protection of humans against exposure
above safe levels.
–
Substantially rReducing
the number of people regularly affected by long-term and significant levels of
noiseby at least 50%
in 2010
–. Phasing out the use of chemical
plant protection products in private gardens and public areas by 2010 at the
latest.
6. The
Programme aims at better resource efficiency and resource and waste management,
with the following objectives:
-
Ecouraging
demand side behavioural change
-
De-coupling
of the use of renewable and non-renewable resources from the rate of economic
growth, and aiming at an overall efficiency gain in the order of factor 4 by
2010 and factor 10 by 2020.
–
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 by
at least 40% over 2000 levels in 2010.the
lifetime of the programme. Furthermore, an
elimination of the release of persistent organic pollutants and carcinogenic,
repro-toxic and
mutagenous substances derived from waste should be achieved.
–
Achieving an significant
overall reduction in the volumes of waste generatedby
at least 20% over 2000 levels in 2010 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 material recycling
the quantity of waste. Recovery should meet equivalent emission control
standards as disposal in the most advanced countries.. For
final disposal wasteshould
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, aiming at the
objectives and targets of this Programme.
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
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.
–
Increased staff
capacities in the Commission and in Member States, especially in the
implementation of intensive policies, such as on waste, water, chemicals and
nature conservation.
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; to this end,
appropriate environmental targets and timetables need to be set for all policy
areas by all relevant Councils, whereby in each case the Environment Council,
the Environment Commissioner and the Environment Committee of the European
Parliament need to participate in the target setting on an equal footing.
– Regular
monitoring, via relevant indicators, and reporting on the process of sectoral
integration; Adoption of a “Common Framework for Environmental
Integration”, based
on EEA’s “Criteria for Assessing Environmental Integration into Economic Sector
Activities” establishing the necessary links between the 6th EAP, the Sustainable
Development Strategy and the Cardiff-Strategies, by 2002 at the latest.
–
Further integration of environmental criteria into Community
other policies and funding programmes
–
Elimination of
subsidies with significantly negative environmental effects by 2005
–
Application of
Strategic Environmental Assessment principles and public participation
processes for all interested stakeholders, fully
implementing the Aarhus Convention, in the design of
Community policies with potentially
significant environmental effects
–
Regular review
of setoral integration strategies
according to the targets and criteria set out in this Programme, the
Sustainable Development Strategy and the “Common Framework for Environmental
Integration” by 2003.
–
A moratorium on
the application of the “New Approach” in policies with a potential
environmental impact – with the exception of measuring and monitoring standards
– until the
following requirements are realised:
–
* a legally
binding application of life cycle thinking,
–
* full
respect of the environmental principles of this Programme
–
* a
commitment towards achieving the targets of
international conventions,
–
* a legally
binding requirement to work on the basis of best practice
–
* direct and
active participation of environmental NGOs in the standardisation proces at EU
and at national levels
–
open, transparent
and minority friendly internal procedures in the standardisation bodies.
3.
To
promote the polluter pays principle, through the use of market based
instruments, including the use of emissions trading, environmental taxes, environmental
liability, extended producer responsibility for all relevant waste streams, 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 schemes 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;
–
Identifying and
promoting co-operation with individual enterprises or federations that pioneer
in environmental innovation.
–
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;
–
Encouraging
Ensuring that voluntary commitments
and agreements are imbedded in a legally binding framework, giving
the Council and the Parliament the right for co-decision, giving interested
parties full consultation rights and ensuring implementation by monitoring and
effective sanctions and complaint procedures for NGOs.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; e.g.
by the introduction of a low VAT and exemption for eco-taxes for products
having such a label.
–
Promote the award
of public purchasing contracts for products and services demonstrating enhanced
environmental performance over their entire life-cycle.
–
Encouraging the use of primarily independently
certified labels and as a second step reliable self-declared
environmental claims and preventing misleading claims;
–
Promoting green procurement, while respecting
reviewing Community competition rules
and the internal market, with guide-lines on best practice and starting with a
review of green procurement in Community Institutions.
–
Promoting via a
new budget line European wide quality reporting on the environmental
performance of products by consumer related testing, evaluation and reporting.
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;
–
Requiring from Calling
on the European Investment Bank to develop strict
criteria that make lending consistent with the overall objectives of this
Programme and environmental legislation. strengthen the
integration of environmental objectives and considerations into its lending
activities;
7.
To
create a Community liability regime requires:
– Effective
Legislation on environmental liability implementing the
polluter pays, the prevention and the precautionary principles for potentially
dangerous activities and biodiversity protection.
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.
-
Enabling national and European
environmental citizens organisations to effectively
participate in and influence multistakeholder dialogue processes and thematic
strategy developments.
-
Enabling national
and European citizens organisations in launching public awareness campaigns on
issues of EU policy relevance.
-
Introduce, by 2003,
labelling of products with health and environmental information on the
hazardous substances they contain.
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;
10. To ensure
that the enlargement of the European Union will have a positive impact on the
countries concerned, the EU will develop:
-
By mid 2002, a
critical review of the orientation and practical use of pre-accession funds and
the instruments of the cohesion policy after accession in order to ensure a
maximum contribution for sustainable development and prevent any negative
impact on the environment. This includes: re-orientation of ISPA towards urban
public transport systems and including small scale environmental projects.
Re-orientation of SAPARD towards environmentally sound and biological forms of
agriculture. For PHARE it means more emphasis on supporting the pre-conditions
for an effective environmental policy, based on able administrations and active
environmental citizens organisations.
-
By mid 2002, in
advance of a major general reform of the Common Agriculture Policy of the
Union, develop a special policy, for the Accession countries, attractive for
the vast majority of its farmers, focussed at preventing deterioration of its
biodiversity, the impoverishment of its rural areas, increase of water quality
and quantity problems and chemical exposure.
–
An
open and ongoing dialogue between the EU and accession countries and their
public organisations on the environmental quality of the accession process.
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
by 2002;
-
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
-
Removing Undertaking an
inventory and review of fossil fuel
related energy subsidies in Member States, on the basis of
an inventory and review. This will include consideration of the
compatibility with the achievement of climate change objectives.and
a clear timeframe for phase out particularly of coal subisides.;
-
Encouraging a shift towards low carbon fuels for power
generation as well as a shift to energy efficient power
generation plants (including co-generation);
-
Encouraging renewable energy sources, with a view to meeting
a target of at least 12% of energy from renewable
sources by 2010;
-
Continue the work on demand side management /
integrated resource planning;
-
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 environmental
tax reform, in particular on 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.
-
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;
-
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-
Assessing the lack of interconnection between
Natura 2000 areas, developing instruments to ensure, where necessary, better
interconnection and developing additional measures to safeguard species outside
Natura 2000 areas.
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 and
desertification, ready for
adoption in 2002.
3.
Promoting
the integration of landscape protection and restoration into other policies.
4.
4.
Encouraging further development of the positive elements of the relationship
between agriculture and the environment in future reviews of the Common
Agricultural Policy. Reviewing the
incentives for intensive farming in present agriculture policies, progressively
delinking subsidies from production and relinking payments to nature,
environment and landscape protection goals, and strengthening rural development
measures and local food quality production which support environmentally
farming and non-farm activities.
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, in
consultation with stakeholders;
-
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 forest-related issues.
7.
A
thematic strategy for the protection of the marine environment,
ready for adoption in 2002.
8.
Reinforcing
controls on monitoring, labelling and traceability of GMOs. In particular, a
Proposal for a horizontal Council and Parliament Regulation on labellling and
traceability covering both GMOs and products derived from GMOs in order to
reinforce controls throughout the food and feed chains.
9.
Monitoring
the implementation of the Community’s bio-diversity strategy and action plans
through a programme for gathering data and information.
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 uUpdatinge
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, such as contaminants interactions;
2.
On chemicals:
-
Developing a new single system for the testing, evaluation
and risk management of new and existing substances, based on the
principles of precaution and substitution respectively;
-
Developing a testing regime depending on properties, uses,
exposure and volumes of chemicals and products, produced,
exported or imported;
-
Establishing new specific and accelerated risk management
procedures to which substances that give rise to very high concern (e.g.
persistent, bioaccumulative or toxic substances) 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.
-
Fully implementing the relevant international
conventions and agreements (e.g. OSPAR, OECD etc.)
3.
On pesticides:
3.- A
thematic strategy, prepared for adoption in 2002, on
the reduction of sustainable use
of pesticidesuse,
as a basis for an EU Directive on measures to reduce impacts to health and
environment from the use of pesticides, by a combination of bans and fiscal
instruments.
–
Revision,
by 2002, of Directive 91/414 to improve the
overall mechanism of the authorisation system, by including
comparative assessment, continuous
improvement in testing requirements and introduction of public participation.
–
Development of a
Code of Good Practice on pesticide use that requires IPM as a minimum and
linking the award of Rural Development Fund to, at least, its uptake,
-
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)
concerning the import and export of dangerous chemicals with the aim of
bringing it into line with the Rotterdam 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 the discharge of all
hazardous substances to water as soon as
possible.
-
Establish a groundwater protection regime under the
Water Framework Directive, which prevents further deterioration of groundwater
quality and prevents the input of pollutants into groundwater by taking account
of the special importance and vulnerability of groundwater as
a resource;
-
Revising the Bathing Water Directive;
-
Extending sustainability
rules to all water uses and applying strategic water resource assessment to
control existing and new abstractions in order to protect the water needs of
ecosystems;
-
Ensuring the integration of the approach of
the Water Framework Directive objectives and
approaches and other water
quality policies 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, ready for
adoption in 2002;
-Considering
indoor air quality and the impacts on health, with recommendations for future
measures where appropriate.
-
To develop a coherent integrated strategy on
interlinkages between clean air and climate protection.
6. On Noise:
--
Proposals
for daughter directives establishing maximum acceptable noise levels
effectively protecting from noise pollution;
7. On
electro-waves produced for mobile phones:
Initiate
research on, and if needed measures against, possible health damage caused by
the electro-waves production for mobile phones.
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, ready for
adoption in 2002, including:
-
consideration of a best practice programme for business;
-
identifying research needs, especially
on the comparative environmental performance of the use of different resources,
and reduction of virgin material use by substitution;
-
economic instruments;
-
removal of subsidies that encourage the over-use of
resources;
-
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.
-
complementing the waste hierarchy by developing a
system of environmental targets related to waste, mainly in the field of
emission reduction, release of hazardous substances and heavy metals into the
environment, greenhouse gas reduction and land-use.
3. Revising
the legislation on sludges, packaging
and batteries.
4.
Recommendations
Legislation on construction and
demolition waste.
5.
Legislationng
on bio-degradable wastes.
6.
A
thematic strategy, ready for adoption in 2002, on the
promotion of waste recycling, including measures aimed at ensuring
the collection and recycling of priority waste streams.
7.
A
white paper on PVC proposing effective measures to phase out the use of PVC, by
2002 .
8. Applying
producer responsibility to other relevant waste streams, such as: furniture,
paints, carpets, building and construction material;
9.
Quality
standards for the safe use of waste from disposal and recovery (e.g. ashes)
10.Harmonised
integrated pollution and prevention control levels for disposal and recovery
11.Legislation
related to mining waste, especially the revision of the landfill directive;
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 before the EU becomes party to such agreement; in
case such assessments indicate significant damage to the environment, within
the EU or elsewhere, ensuring that either the agreement is modified, or that
the EU does not enter into the agreement
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 the most effective choices and to ensure better a satisfactory
result for the environment in regard to the measures to be proposed.
2.
Continuing
Intensifying financial support to
environmental NGOs to facilitate strengthenparticipation
in the dialogue processes.
-3- General rules
and principles for good environmental governance in dialogue processes, such as
environmental objectives, rules for participation, decision-making rules and a
clear definition of the responsibilities of the Commission, Member States and
the European Parliament.
3.
Ensuring that environment remains a major priority for
Community research programmes, in the context of the Community Framework
Programme of research and technological development. Ensuring better
co-ordination of research related to the environment conducted in Member
States.
-
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.
4.
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.
5.
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.
3.
The
Thematic Strategies are to be presented to Council and Parliament for adoption
in 2002.
4,
A system of lead indicators should be established by 2002 and regularly
discussed and updated on the basis of
an annual report to the Council and Parliament.
Article
11
This Decision
shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
| 