Annexes to COM(2011)531 - Sixth Community Environment Action Programme FINAL ASSESSMENT - Main contents
Please note
This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.
| dossier | COM(2011)531 - Sixth Community Environment Action Programme FINAL ASSESSMENT. |
|---|---|
| document | COM(2011)531  |
| date | August 31, 2011 |
Shortfalls: Despite the EU's efforts to strengthen multi-lateral cooperation and demonstrate its commitment to international conventions and agreements, little progress was made towards improved global environmental governance. Although environmental concerns were promoted in the EU's trade relations policies, they could have been better integrated into core issues such as access to markets in trade agreements. Integrating the environmental dimension into development aid was too dependent on the priority attributed to it by beneficiary countries.
Lessons learned : Environmental challenges, which are increasingly global, require a more cohesive and focused effort within the EU so that it can play its role more effectively in shaping international policy and continuing to strive for better global environmental governance. An agreed vision setting out key objectives should be the starting point for future EU action to tackle global and regional environmental problems. This would help to mobilise limited financial resources in the optimum way. The EU's growing external footprint[31] must be considered along with the effectiveness of the environmental dimension in aid policies. More could and should be done to raise awareness of the economic costs and benefits of environmental issues, and the costs of inaction. The EU should also promote the "green economy" at global level, integrating environmental, social and economic aspects such as poverty alleviation.
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE STRATEGIC APPROACHES AND INSTRUMENTS
In addition to the priority areas above, the 6th EAP refers to a range of policy-making approaches and instruments including coherence and integration, finance and implementation and enforcement. These are assessed below.
Contribution: The 6th EAP complemented the Lisbon Strategy[32] and the Sustainable Development Strategy[33] and focused in particular on integrating environmental concerns in all policy areas, notably through the Thematic Strategies. It highlighted the need for mainstreaming environmental expenditure and financing the Natura 2000 network. Sixteen percent of the Union's multi-annual budget for 2007–2013[34], which covers the second half of the 6th EAP, is nominally allocated to supporting environmental objectives including the dedicated LIFE programme[35].
The 6th EAP strongly encouraged and promoted principles and instruments for better policy-making, in particular integrated impact assessments and increased use of market-based instruments. It also highlighted the importance of solid scientific foundations for policy making.
Achievements: The 6th EAP aimed for coherence throughout the EU environment policy cycle itself, addressing objectives, instruments, implementation and - though difficult to measure - outcomes. The Thematic Strategies in particular contributed significantly to coherence within the Programme's priority areas, either by closing important gaps such as for the marine and urban environments, soil and resources, or by addressing smaller, more specific lacunae in existing measures, e.g. air, pesticides, waste prevention and recycling.
With regard to integration, the 6th EAP helped to guide the ongoing process of environmental integration in reforms of the CAP, CFP and CP. Forestry actions were also pursued, culminating in the 2010 Green Paper on forest protection and information.
To improve the implementation of environmental legislation the Commission deployed efforts ranging from greater emphasis on prevention of breaches to more strategic enforcement activities, such as focusing on fundamental or systemic infringements. The Environmental Liability Directive encourages the provision of financial security to remedy environmental damage.
More substantial funding was made available from Cohesion Policy funds[36] for various investments into the environment such as sustainable energy, biodiversity and nature protection or waste and water infrastructure, and from agricultural funds for better environmental performance. The 6th and 7th RTD Framework Programmes[37] also increasingly addressed sustainable development and the environment. The LIFE programme, despite its limited size, has had a visible impact on supporting implementation of the 6th EAP and has enabled targeted efforts in support of environment policy. The Environmental Compliance Assistance Programme (ECAP) offers specific help to small and medium-sized enterprises. Internationally, the Commission dedicated funds from a development aid instrument[38] for the 2007–2013 period, and from geographic cooperation programmes. Some progress, albeit limited, was also made on removing Environmentally Harmful Subsidies during reviews of the CFP and in the transport sector and more recently in the coal sector.
Different sets of indicators have been developed over time to strengthen the knowledge base. The five-yearly SOER Reports from the EEA have provided essential stock-taking while the Commission’s Annual Environment Policy Reviews[39] also give regular information. In addition, the implementation of INSPIRE[40] and the further development of SEIS will improve environment information systems in coming years.
Shortfalls: Although it was also flagged at the end of the 5th EAP, and despite some progress, more needs to be done to improve coherence between the different strands of EU policy. Over-exploitation of the marine environment and in particular fisheries remains a problem. Transport continues to impose a significant environmental burden and environmental pressures from unsustainable consumption and production continue to grow.
Member States could still considerably improve their implementation record. The 6th EAP provided predictability on forthcoming initiatives in order for Member States and those involved in implementing legislation to be better prepared. However, this did not seem to happen: environmental infringement procedures still account for approximately one fifth of all open cases for non-communication, non-conformity or bad application of EU legislation. Implementation has been particularly problematic in the nature conservation, waste and water areas which accounted for approximately two-thirds of EU environmental infringement cases in 2010.
The political debate on the 6th EAP in co-decision took place in the aftermath of the financial framework debate. This had already established the broad lines of the mainstream budget for the first half of the programme until 2006, which was not optimal. The effective translation of development aid and geographic cooperation programme funds into environmental programmes/projects in beneficiary countries has yet to be assessed.
Despite recent positive developments, environmental information, in particular official data and statistics, is still incomplete and not always available on time. Measures to phase out environmentally harmful subsidies did not proceed as far as had been initially hoped for and the potential to orient taxation to promote better sustainability has not been exploited. While market-based instruments have been exploited in some sectors, notably through the greenhouse gas emission trading system, their full potential remains to be tapped.
Lessons learned: The changing nature of environmental challenges requires better coherence from policy formulation to delivery, including at Member State level, both between priority areas, e.g. climate change and air policy, and in other environmentally important sectors. Trade-offs implicit in policy development could have been made more visible, e.g. the effects of bio-energy production, or the negative impacts of renewable hydropower on many water bodies.
Poor implementation of environmental legislation undermines the achievement of objectives and the credibility of environment policy, and does not help to secure the commitment of other sectors to better performance. Commission experience points to weaknesses in the EU-wide environmental governance structure, and inadequacies in the information-related provisions of environmental legislation and other EU legislation, in monitoring and in inspections.
Maximising the effectiveness of financing from programmes whose primary objective is not environmental protection requires constant scrutiny. Given the pressure on public budgets, the possibility to mobilise private sector capital needs to be addressed adequately and sufficiently early in EU environment policy development. Moreover, those policies with a clear added value in creating a green economy and that can be delivered in the short/medium term should be prioritised, e.g. Green Public Procurement. Further steps towards reform of environmental harmful subsidies are also needed.
A more extensive environmental knowledge base is required together with a better understanding of the drivers and barriers to improvements and implementation of legislation.
Efforts to support eco-innovation in Europe should be reinforced to address barriers to market uptake of promising research results.
CHALLENGES FOR THE FUTURE
The principal pillars of environment policy and legislation, with the exception of soil, are now in place, although their full potential to deliver improvements has yet to materialise due to shortfalls in implementation.
During the lifespan of the 6th EAP, the global economic order has been reshaped. New economic actors are emerging, and as the global population grows, increasing demand for resources is putting more pressure on the environment. The EU has expanded through its enlargements during this period, and so is increasingly dependent on imported resources[41].
Traditional environment policy still has a very important role to play in protecting the environment. But changing circumstances and the increasingly interlinked nature of environmental challenges imply a need to be flexible and to adapt.
The underlying key challenge for future environment policy is to evolve from remediation to prevention of degradation, and to help further integrate the environment in all relevant policies. In this context a longer term vision would provide a sense of assurance for policy direction while not compromising the need to reflect changing circumstances in the interim.
The Europe 2020 strategy envisages transformation to a green, resource-efficient, competitive and low-carbon economy as a potential new paradigm for sustainable economic growth. Achieving similar gains for resource productivity in future decades, as in past decades for labour productivity, will reduce EU dependency on raw materials and natural resources. Using land more sustainably will reduce pressures on ecosystems and the services they provide. Equally, technological developments and innovation, and in particular eco-design, will help respond to these challenges and lead to more sustainable growth than in the past.
Internationally , the EU should also leverage its potential as a marketplace of some 500 million people with strict environmental standards and related skills and products. It can thus promote sustainable green growth beyond its borders, including among the beneficiaries of EU aid, while continuing to strive for better global environmental governance. This is likely to require paradigm shifts in international environmental governance based on sound science-based policy decisions. Integrating environmental and low-carbon considerations into business models in other sectors, and ensuring coherence from policy formulation through to implementation are essential. Obstacles to proper implementation of existing legislation need to be addressed, in particular governance issues at all levels in Member States, in order to protect the environment and limit negative consequences on public health.
Environmental pressures are increasingly global and systemic in nature. Because of the complex inter-linkages, we require a more extensive knowledge base to understand better the drivers and barriers, to justify the cost of action and inaction, and to develop reliable indicators to measure progress toward a sustainable future for the EU.
The potential to change the behaviour of consumers, both as individuals and as groups, and particularly in urban communities, in order to ease pressures on the environment, must also be fully examined[42]. The use of market-based instruments to mobilise more sustainable consumption patterns should be expanded. In addition, efforts to remove environmentally harmful subsidies should continue.
In the future, given the pressures on public budgets, environmental improvements will increasingly depend on a mix of public and private sector financing. Setting environmental objectives and deciding in parallel on the extent to which they can be publicly and privately funded would provide a greater degree of certainty that they would be achieved. This implies that environment policy planning should be better aligned with the multi-annual financing frameworks, since these set the publicly funded financial envelopes at EU level and determine the needs for co-financing in other policy domains on whose actions environmental outcomes increasingly depend.
CONCLUSIONS
The results of this assessment show that on balance the 6th EAP helped to provide environment policy an overarching framework for a decade during which environmental legislation was consolidated and completed to cover almost all areas of environment, with the exception of soil. Adoption by co-decision has been seen by stakeholders as giving it more legitimacy and helped to create a wider sense of ownership for subsequent policy proposals. But it also shows shortcomings and limitations: in particular, inclusion in the EAP is no guarantee that Member States are actually committed to these objectives.
Although the 6th EAP is in its final year, the Commission continues to pursue an ambitious environment policy that is now an integral part of the Europe 2020 Strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. Policy orientations have been adopted on climate, transport and biodiversity. Others are expected later this year on resource efficiency and initiatives in the areas of water, air pollution, waste legislation and sustainable consumption and production are foreseen for the next one to two years. Against this background, the Commission will consider how a new environment action programme could best provide added value in the rapidly evolving context for environment policy.
[1] OJ L242/1 10.9.2002
[2] COM(2010)2020, 3.3.2010
[3] COM(2011)244, 3.5.2011
[4] COM(2011) 363, 20.6.2011
[5] COM(2011) 112, 8.3.2011
[6] COM(2011) 144, 28.3.2011
[7] COM(2010) 639
[8] COM(2011) 109, 8.3.2011
[9] COM(2008)397, 16.7.2008
[10] http://ec.europa.eu/environment/newprg/final.htm
[11] http://www.eea.europa.eu/soer/
[12] COM(2005)446 (Air Pollution); COM(2006)372 (Sustainable Use of Pesticides); COM(2005)666 (Prevention and Recycling of Waste); COM(2005)670 (Sustainable Use of Natural Resources); COM(2006)231 (Soil Protection); COM(2005)504 (Protection and Conservation of the Marine Environment); and COM(2005)718 (Urban Environment).
[13] COM(2004)487
[14] COM(97) 2000
[15] http://www.teebweb.org/
[16] http://biodiversity.europa.eu/topics/sebi-indicators
[17] Council Directive 92/43/EEC, OJ L 206 , 22.07.1992
[18] http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/eu-2010-biodiversity-baseline/
[19] COM(2006)232
[20] COM(2004)416
[21] The ESTAT Data Centre on Natural Resources and the UNEP International Resource Panel
[22] Directive 2009/125/EC, OJ L285/10, 31.10.2009
[23] Directive 2002/95/EC, OJ L37/19, 13.2.2003
[24] http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ipp/pdf/eipro_report.pdf
[25] Directive 2004/101/EC amending Directive 2003/87/EC, OJ L 338, 13.11.2004, p. 18–23
[26] Council Directive 91/676/EEC, OJ L 375 , 31/12/1991 and Council Directive 1999/31/EEC, OJ L 182 , 16/07/1999
[27] Directive 2009/31/EC, OJ L140/114, 5.6.2009
[28] Directive 2001/77EC OJ L 283, 27.10.2001
[29] Convention on the Prior Informed Consent (PIC) Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chamicals and Pesticides in International Trade, Council Decision on conclusion OJ L 063, 6.3.2003
[30] Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs), Council Decision on conclusion, 14.10.2004
[31] A comparison between human demand and the Earth's ecological capacity to regenerate, e.g. the water footprint measures the total amount of water used to produce good s and services consumed.
[32] COM (2005) 24
[33] COM (2005) 97
[34] COM (2004) 487
[35] OJ L 149 9.6.2007
[36] In the 2007-13 programming period approximately one-third (€ 105 billion) of the total Cohesion Policy funds will be directly or indirectly invested into the environment
[37] Decisions 1513/2002/EC and 1982/2006/EC
[38] CEC (2007) Thematic Strategy for the Environment and Sustainable Management of Natural Resources (ENRTP)
[39] COM (2009) 304
[40] OJ L 108 25.4.2007
[41] (up more than 30% from 1999 to 2008, according to EEA SOER 2010)
[42] http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/behavioural_economics