Dimas presenteert evaluatie Zesde Milieu Actieprogramma voor EU-milieuministers in Finland (en)

SPEECH/06/461

Stavros Dimas

Member of the European Commission responsible for Environment

Environment Council - Informal meeting in Turku

Finland, 15 July 2006

I would like to begin by congratulating the Finnish Presidency for their level of ambition. It is fitting that a country that tops all league tables for global innovation aim at nothing less than a "New Generation of Environmental Policy".

Over the last 30 years we have built a legislative framework that has delivered impressive results. The quality of our air and water is much better as the result of European legislation. We have worked together to tackle the problems of acid rain, the thinning of the ozone layer and to ban pollutants such as lead in petrol. And with the NATURA network we have the most sophisticated nature protection network in the world.

We have also launched a number of major initiatives in recent years. The Water Framework Directive, REACH, the Thematic Strategies, and this year's Biodiversity Action Plan. And - lets be honest - we are at a time when many environmental policies are being attacked with claims that they come at the cost of jobs and growth.

Against this context one approach could be to focus on implementing and fine tuning the existing framework. Implementation is certainly a priority and is an issue that I will return to. But let me be perfectly clear - business as usual is simply not an option. If we look at the bigger picture it becomes clear that Europe is still very far away from a model of development that is anywhere near sustainable.

For all the EU's efforts on climate change the global emission of greenhouse gasses is accelerating. Air pollution kills hundreds of thousands of Europeans every year. Many of Europe's species and habitats are under threat. And although we have more than doubled rates of waste re-cycling we are nowhere near decoupling our economic growth from our use of resources.

If we are to even begin addressing these issues then we will need to increase our levels of ambition. And to do this will need new approaches to environmental policy in order to build upon the framework that we already have in place. This will be one of the main themes in the review of the 6th Environmental Action Programme that the Commission is currently preparing.

The environmental challenges

But before looking at the way in which we make policy we will need to be entirely clear about the scale and the nature of the environmental challenges that we are facing. The starting point for the Commission's review will be a scientific assessment of the current situation for each of the priority areas identified in the Action Programme: climate change, biodiversity, health and resources. With the Environment Agency's State of the Environment Report and the Millenium Ecosystem Assessment we already have a base-line and a good idea of the areas where further work will be needed.

Climate Change is most important global threat we are facing. In 2004, disasters related to climate change across the world caused economic losses totalling some €80 billon. The Association of British Insurers estimates that, by 2080, insured losses from hurricanes in the US alone could reach US$ 100-150 billion a year. The 2012-EU target for reducing greenhouse gases by 8% is broadly on track - but efforts so far are only scratching the surface of the problem.

Urgent action is needed on two fronts. On the international scene the EU needs to exert real leadership at the Climate Change conference in Nairobi driving forward a long-term global response to climate change.

And at home we need to practice what we preach and cut our own emissions. Here I can assure you that there is no doubt about the Commission's resolve to maintain emission trading as the cornerstone of its climate policy for the period beyond 2012. The decisions we take on the second round national plans will be decisive for how emission trading contributes to meeting our Kyoto target. I encourage all Member States that have not yet put forward their national plan to do so promptly.

At the same time, longer-term reductions of greenhouse gases will only be possible if substantial changes are made in other sectors, especially energy and transport.

We need to put environmental concerns at the core of EU energy policy in order to deliver a low carbon future. And in the short term, the Environment Council must play an active role in preparing the Spring Summit of 2007 where energy will feature high on the agenda.

With transport we are already preparing measures to cover the aviation sector - but it is also clear that we need to take new steps to reduce CO2 emissions from cars in order to reach the Community objective of 120 gr/km. The supply of bio-fuels, offers one way forward, provided we take full account of their total environmental impact. But we should also give higher priority then we do now to fuel-efficiency.

Together with climate change stopping the loss of biodiversity is a challenge of fundamental importance and of global dimensions. The 2005 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment underlined that ecosystem services are the life-support system upon which our well-being depends. We take these goods and services so much for granted that we can only see how important they are when they are gone. And yet, the Millennium Assessment concludes that two-thirds of these services are in decline.

The situation in the EU may be better than in other parts of the world but even here the scientific facts tell us that we are already facing a crisis. Our threatened species include 30% of amphibians; 42% of native mammals; and 43% of birds. In addition to this, many marine fish stocks are being exploited outside safe biological limits and some are in danger of collapse.

The Commission's approach to stopping bio-diversity loss is set out in the Action Plan that we adopted in May. A number of important new initiatives are announced - but the key message is that the policy framework is already in place and that we now need to focus on implementation. And here I would underline that Member States need to use all the opportunities open to them under EU funds to guarantee that there is enough funding to support the active management of the NATURA network.

Public health remains a priority especially as we now have a better understanding of the impacts of the environment on human health. REACH, which is likely to be concluded under the current Finnish Presidency, will mark an important change in this area. Further work is also needed on Air Pollution - and a critical next step will be adopting an Air Quality Directive that delivers increased levels of protection for our citizens

Spiralling energy and commodity prices are the clearest proof that both producers and consumers need to play an active role in managing our limited resources. The Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable Use of Resources provides a long-term framework of action. It implies new thinking on industrial processing, new investment to improve energy efficiency and research into alternatives. But the benefits will be lower production costs, and improved competitiveness.

The Commission will put forward an EU action plan for sustainable production and consumption. It is important that Member States follow the proposal made by the Finnish Presidency and follow this up with national plans.

Policy approach

The main environmental challenges that we face have not changed since the adoption of the 6th Action Programme in 2002. Progress has been made in a number of areas - but the basic problems remain. If we are serious about tackling them we will needed to step up our levels of ambition as well as improve the way in which we make environmental policy. I can see five key areas where this is needed.

Firstly, environmental policy makers need to embrace the better regulation agenda - but on our own terms. We need to make our legislation easier to implement but at the same time more effective in terms of delivering environmental protection. This philosophy should be at the heart of any "new approach to environmental policy".

The strength of the EU's environmental policy is its legislation and, if we are to achieve our environmental objectives, this must remain the case. The legal framework should allow for flexibility on the basis of national/regional conditions but the basic elements should remain the same across the EU. We have certainly not come to the end of environmental legislation. We will still need to develop new legislation, revise and improve existing directives. At the same time new instruments are an important complement to the overall policy mix and need to be developed.

• - 

  A new approach to environmental policy should look at extending the use of market based instruments - including environmental fiscal reform.
• - 

  It should include getting the prices right for environmental goods and services. Once this is done we can use the tools of the market to change polluting behaviours.
• - 

  A new approach will mean using the tools of better regulation - such as impact assessments - to meet environmental as well as competitiveness objectives.
• - 

  And it should also include a more pro-active engagement with industry "pioneers" in order to accelerate the development and the adoption of environmental technologies.

Secondly, the EU needs to take a greater leadership on Global Issues. Pollution does not stop at national borders. This is why action at the EU-level has added value and has strong public support in all opinion polls. This is also why we have to act internationally if we are to address global problems that are damaging the environment in the EU.

The example of climate change shows how Europe can play a decisive role in shaping the global agenda. But we also need decisive action - at both the bilateral and multi-lateral levels - to address issues such as the global loss of bio-diversity and other resources. What is more, increasing environmental standards in third countries is the best way of addressing industry's fears of being at a competitive disadvantage.

The Presidency Paper is therefore quite right that we need to introduce environmental thinking into our foreign policies and that we need to improve global environmental governance. But, while pushing for international solutions, we will not refrain from a more ambitious approach, even in cases when our partners may not always follow us. Leadership means setting high standards for ourselves, delivering on our international commitments, and showing that an ambitious environmental policy can go hand-in-hand with economic growth.

A third key area is improving the implementation of our legislation. This will be vital if we are to achieve our environmental objectives. It is important for the political credibility of our policy and to ensure equal treatment across the EU. The Commission will not hesitate to use legal action whenever necessary - but we have come to realise that effective implementation is much more than just enforcement. A lot of progress has been made with better designed legislation and by working closely with Member States to tackle the root causes of enforcement problems. But a lot more still needs to be done. The Commission will step up efforts to ensure EU legislation is actually carried out.

It is also important to underline that effective implementation will also need the adequate financing of environmental investments. Additional resources are needed - particularly for the new Member States - and here it is essential that ministries of environment participate actively in the national negotiations on the next structural programmes.

A fourth priority is effective integration of environmental policy into other policy areas. This is hardly a new idea - but progress has been limited. I think the Finnish idea of long-term policy orientations for the key sectors of agriculture, energy & transport is interesting and look forward to hearing the reaction of colleagues. Another possibility would be for Presidencies to use a number of Council formations to discuss environmental issues. The way the Austrian Presidency managed the Sustainable Development Strategy was exemplary.

A final way to improve environmental policy is to improve how we explain and communicate our policies. Science is on our side and public opinion is generally supportive. But there is a persistent myth that environmental protection comes at the cost of jobs and growth. This is despite the fact that mainstream economics tells us that environmental regulation is a driver of innovation and can contribute to growth. Just ask companies like General Electric who have made massive investments in eco-technologies and whose profits are soaring as a result.

To dispel this myth once and for all and to raise public awareness we need to develop our arguments and present them much more effectively. And here I would like to underline the essential role that NGOs have to play in explaining environmental issues to the public - as well as communicating the public's concerns to policy makers.

Conclusion

I would like to conclude with the following thought. It is environmental quality that must remain our core concern. In some areas, such as climate change and bio-diversity, we are approaching the "tipping-point", and the win-win approaches do not always exist. Here we will need to take tough political decisions on environmental grounds.

At the same time, there is plenty of scope for making our legislation more effective in terms of protecting the environment - as well as easier to implement.

The paper from the Finnish Presidency is an important point of departure. And I can tell you already that many of these ideas will be picked up and developed in our review of the 6th Environment Action Programme