| Forside | | Indhold | | Forrige | | Næste |

International NGO-indsats for bæredygtig produktion og forbrug

BILAG A
Integrationspatruljen – resultater

1.1 Dokumenter

Dokumenterne i listen nedenfor udgør det input, projektet har givet til miljøintegrationsarbejdet nationalt og på europæisk niveau. Listen er sorteret efter aktivitetslisten i hovedrapporten (gengivet efter tabellen) angivet som tal i parentes i første søjle.

Visse dokumenter står med DN som afsender, andre med EEB eller anden afsender, hvor DN har lavet et væsentligt bidrag til indholdet.

(5) Se temasider under www.dn.dk/eu, nærmere beskrevet under afsnit 1.2 nedenfor.

Aktiviteter fra projektbeskrivelsen

Referencepunkter til tabellens første søjle.

1.      Monitering og input til Konkurrenceevnerådets løbende arbejde. Op til hvert rådsmøde udarbejdes kommentarer til relevante sager, som sendes til erhvervsministeren og andre relevante beslutningstagere

2.      Analyse af Konkurrenceevnerådets eksisterende strategi for miljøintegration, herunder anbefalinger til forbedringer.

3.      Bidrag til EEB's arbejde på europæisk plan, herunder kontakt til europæiske samarbejdspartnere og oversættelse af DN's arbejde.

4.      Udarbejdelse af anbefalinger til en generel styrkelse af Cardiff-processen i forbindelse med revisionen af Lissabon-strategien/EU-strategien for bæredygtig udvikling i 2004/2005.

5.      Opdatering af temaside om miljøintegration på DN's hjemmeside.

1.2 DNs webtema om miljøintegration

På www.dn.dk blev oprettet en række temasider, som beskriver indsatsen. Temasiderne tager udgangspunkt i en hovedside om emnet, hvorfra der er lænker til en række undersider og dokumenter.

1.2.1 Hovedside om Miljøintegration

1.2.2 Cardiff-processen kort fortalt

1.3 Tre eksempler på høringssvar og notater fra indsatsen

1.3.1 Høringssvar vedr. strategi for konkurrenceevne i Europa (26. maj 2004)

Indgivet: 26. maj 2004
DN-journalnr.: 3-32 / 017018

Til:

Økonomi- og Erhvervsministeriet
Kirsten Alkjærsig
kia@oem.dk

Tekst:

”Høringssvar vedr. strategi for konkurrenceevne i Europa

Danmarks Naturfredningsforening (DN) har med stor interesse læst udkastet til regeringens publikation om ”Bedre konkurrenceevne i Europa – forudsætningen for vækst og beskæftigelse”. Vi har følgende bemærkninger til udkastet:

Kapitel 1: Bedre konkurrenceevne i Europa

DN bifalder udkastets erkendelse af at væksten skal ske ”på en anstændig måde”, og at vi skal sørge for ”at vores miljø og arbejdsmiljø fortsat har en høj standard”. Vi beklager imidlertid, at erkendelsen ikke følges op med konkrete bud på hvordan EU kan fremme virksomhedernes konkurrenceevne samtidigt med at miljøbeskyttelsen forbedres.

Kapitel 1 bør indeholde en mere præcis beskrivelse af den overordnede politiske ramme som EU’s indsats for øget konkurrenceevne foregår i. Her tænkes især på målet om en bæredygtig udvikling og fortolkningen af det samt det grundlæggende princip om integration af miljøhensyn i sektorpolitikkerne:

Bæredygtig udvikling er et grundlæggende mål i henhold til EU-traktaten. Ifølge EU-strategien for bæredygtig udvikling, som blev vedtaget af stats- og regeringscheferne i 2001 kræver dette, ”at politikkerne på det økonomiske og det sociale område og på miljøområdet fastlægges på en sådan måde, at de styrker hinanden gensidigt”.

På EU’s forårstopmøde i 2003 understregede stats- og regeringscheferne at ”den økonomiske og sociale udvikling vil ikke forblive bæredygtig på længere sigt, medmindre der tages skridt til at lette presset på miljøet og bevare naturressourcerne inden for rammerne af den overordnede strategi for bæredygtig udvikling”.

Endelig indeholder Traktaten et grundlæggende princip om at ”miljøbeskyttelseskrav skal integreres i udformningen og gennemførelsen af fællesskabets politikker og aktioner […] især med henblik på at fremme en bæredygtig udvikling” (art. 6).

Kapitel 3.1: EU skal fokusere på strukturreformer og rammevilkår

DN bifalder understregningen af at det er ”vigtigt at undgå at basere sig på traditionel industripolitik, hvor enkeltsektorer eller brancher får særbehandling og subsidier”. EU bliver ikke konkurrencedygtigt ved at satse på ”business as usual”. I stedet bør EU satse hårdt på at støtte udviklingen af miljøvenlige produktionsformer og virksomheder. Det bør ske gennem en langt bedre brug af økonomiske virkemidler i miljøpolitikken, som sikrer, at miljøeffekter afspejles i markedspriserne, til gavn for de virksomheder, der arbejder ihærdigt på at skabe bæredygtige produktionsformer. Gennem langt større investeringer i udvikling og anvendelse af miljøteknologi. Og gennem udvikling af EU’s miljøregulering (bl.a. med et effektivt REACH) og en konsekvent håndhævelse af denne.

Kapitel 5.1.1: Det indre marked

Danmark bør presse på for at miljøhensyn i højere grad integreres i det europæiske standardiseringsarbejde, særligt når der er tale om brug af den ”nye metode”.

DN mener at anvendelse af den ”nye metode” på miljøområdet kun skal ske under følgende betingelser:

1.      Såvel direktiv som mandat skal indeholde helt klare formuleringer om hvilke miljøbeskyttelseskrav de efterfølgende standarder skal opfylde. Grundlæggende politiske spørgsmål såsom grænseværdier for forurening må ikke sendes videre til standardiseringsorganisationerne.

2.      Der skal være politisk kontrol med de standarder, der udarbejdes under den ny metode. Der bør indføres en systematisk kontrol både i løbet af standardiseringsprocessen og især af slutproduktet for at sikre, at miljøhensyn bliver integreret i den konkrete standard.

3.      Standardiseringsprocessen skal gøres mere gennemskuelig, herunder skal det være let at få adgang til oplysninger og informationer, således at det er muligt for diverse interessenter, både myndigheder, industri og NGO’ere, at holde øje med, om der er standarder på vej, som har betydning på f.eks. miljøområdet.

4.      Standardiseringsorganisationerne skal forpligtes til at indtænke miljø i deres løbende arbejde.

5.      EU bør vedtage et rammedirektiv for integration af miljøhensyn på svarende til direktivet om produktsikkerhed. Dette skal stille mindstekrav til hvilke miljøhensyn der skal tages i alt standardiseringsarbejde.

6.      EU’s økonomiske støtte til konkrete standardiseringsaktiviteter skal betinges af, at standardiseringsorganisationerne fremlægger beskrivelser af hvordan miljøhensyn tænkes inddraget.

Initiativ 3: Incitamenter til hurtigere og bedre gennemførelse af EU-regler i
national lovgivning

DN finder det afgørende at EU-landene foretager en hurtig og korrekt implementering af miljølovgivningen. Det er også til gavn for virksomhederne, at alle spiller efter de samme regler på dette område. Særligt for virksomheder i de lande, der traditionelt har været foregangslande på miljøområdet.

Adskillige analyser har vist, at implementeringen af EU’s miljølovgivning er alt for ringe, selvom Kommissionen på dette område forsøger at udnytte de retlige sanktionsmuligheder. Der er i høj grad også tale om et ressourcespørgsmål. Ingen kan være tjent med at EU-lovgivningen ikke håndhæves konsekvent, og derfor bør Danmark presse på for, at Kommissionen får/bruger flere ressourcer til at kontrollere og håndhæve gennemførelsen af fællesskabslovgivningen.

Initiativ 7: Flere offentlige opgaver skal udsættes for konkurrence

I forbindelse med gennemførelsen af EU’s udbudsregler bør der så vidt muligt stilles krav om det offentlige skal vælge de mest miljøvenlige alternativer. Hvis den offentlige sektor bruger pengene på en miljømæssigt forsvarlig måde vil det give et kæmpe skub fremad til miljøvenlige virksomheder og udviklingen af miljøteknologi.

Når EU-landene udveksler ideer til udvikling af enkle og pragmatiske udbudsmetoder og –modeller bør det samtidigt indgå hvorvidt man bedst inddrager miljøkrav i udbudsmaterialet.

Kapitel 5.1.4: Gode lovgivningsmæssige rammer

DN bifalder initiativ 9 om øgede muligheder for digital forvaltning da der sandsynligvis også vil være miljøfordele forbundet med dette.

Hvad angår konsekvensvurderinger bør Konkurrenceevnerådet forbedre brugen af disse under hensyntagen til EU’s mål om en bæredygtig udvikling og kravet om miljøintegration i alle politikker. Det bør endvidere sikres, at konsekvensvurderinger af regulering tager hensyn til de langsigtede effekter. Det skyldes, at f.eks. miljøreguleringens fordele – også i forhold til erhvervslivet – som oftest først vil vise sig efter et vist tidsrum, mens investeringsbehovet/omkostningerne umiddelbart kan konstateres og beregnes. I forhold til det korte sigt er det vigtigt at konsekvensvurderinger af miljøregulering ikke blot beskriver de økonomiske omkostninger for de forurenende virksomheder, der skal reguleres, men også fordelene for de virksomheder, der allerede har gjort en stor indsats på miljøområdet - eller står klar til at gøre det, hvis miljøindsatsen i højere grad vil afspejle sig på bundlinien.

I forhold til konsekvensvurderinger af større ændringsforslag bifalder vi, at udkastet slår fast at konsekvensvurderingerne skal inkludere økonomiske, miljømæssige og sociale konsekvenser. Understregningen af, at konsekvensvurderinger af ændringsforslag skal indrettes således, at beslutningseffektiviteten ikke svækkes, finder vi helt afgørende.

NYT INITIATIV: Fremme af miljøteknologi

Publikationen bør indeholde et initiativ om at fremme udvikling og øget anvendelse af miljøteknologi.

Kommissionens handlingsplanen for miljøteknologi (KOM(2004)38) er baseret på erkendelsen

af, at der findes et betydeligt ubrugt teknologisk potentiale for at forbedre miljøet og samtidig bidrage til konkurrencedygtighed og vækst. Handlingsplanens mål er 1) at fjerne hindringerne for, at miljøteknologiens fulde miljøbeskyttelsespotentiale kan udnyttes, og samtidig bidrage til konkurrencedygtighed og økonomisk vækst 2) at sikre, at EU i de kommende år kommer til at spille en førende rolle inden for udvikling og anvendelse af miljøteknologi 3) at mobilisere alle interessenterne omkring disse mål. Derudover redegøres der for 28 forskellige foranstaltninger som kan fremme miljøteknologien i Europa.

EU’s forårstopmøde i 2004 understregede at ”ren teknologi er afgørende for fuldt at udnytte synergieffekter mellem erhvervslivet og miljøet”. Det Europæiske Råd bifaldt endvidere Kommissionens handlingsplan for miljøteknologi og opfordrede til at den gennemføres hurtigt.

En strategi for bedre konkurrenceevne i Europa, som ikke forholder sig seriøst til denne udfordring er efter DN’s mening slet ikke fyldestgørende.

NYT INITIATIV: Ajourføring af Konkurrenceevnerådets strategi for miljøintegration

På Konkurrenceevnerådets møde i november 2002 (under det danske formandskab) blev der vedtaget en rapport om opfølgning på Konkurrenceevnerådets strategi for miljøintegration (14489/02). Rapporten gør status for de 15 mål og indikatorer for miljøintegration i erhvervspolitikken der, som led i den såkaldte Cardiff-proces, blev overleveret til EU-topmødet om bæredygtig udvikling i Gøteborg i 2001. Rapporten stiller endvidere i udsigt, at Rådet vil fremlægge en ajourført strategi for miljøintegration inden udgangen af 2003. Det blev som bekendt ikke tilfældet.

Regeringen bør bidrage aktivt til at opfylde ovenstående løfte ved at medtage en ajourføring af miljøintegrationsstrategien som et initiativ i den aktuelle publikation. Kommissionen bør atter opfordres til, at udarbejde et oplæg til en ajourført strategi, som kan behandles af Konkurrenceevnerådet i september, og indgå som et væsentligt bidrag i midtvejsrevisionen af Lissabon-processen.

På forårstopmødet i 2003 opfordrede Det Europæiske Råd til en styrkelse af Cardiff-processen for integration af miljøhensyn i sektorpolitikkerne gennem opstilling af såvel overordnede som sektorspecifikke mål for afkobling mellem økonomisk vækst og miljøbelastning. Dette kunne Konkurrenceevnerådet passende tage op i forbindelse med en ajourføring af strategien for miljøintegration.

Med venlig hilsen

Michael Minter”

1.3.2 Statusnotat fra DN og EEB om EU's politik i forhold til konkurrenceevne og miljø (22. juni 2004)

Afsendt: 22. Juni 2004

Tekst:

”Article 6 Watch:

Briefing Paper on Competitiveness and Environment

Background

Since the adoption of EU’s strategy for sustainable development in 2001 the environmental dimension of sustainable development has come under heavy pressure. Today there’s a strong political trend to highlight “competitiveness” as a super-objective, one that should be given precedence over social and environmental objectives.

Over the past couple of years industrial organisations and EU Member States led by France, Germany and the UK have repeatedly voiced their fears about economic slowdown and the manufacturing base moving out of Europe.

This claimed “de-industrialisation” of Europe is mainly blamed on inflexible labour market regulations, high social costs and increasing regulatory burdens on industry. Environmental commitments and objectives are often presented as a burden to growth and competitiveness rather than preconditions for sustainable development.

What’s going on? And what should the EEB do about it?

What’s going on?

Lisbon Strategy

In March 2000 the European Council in Lisbon set out a ten-year strategy to make the EU “the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion.” At the same time the European Council gave the Commission a mandate to develop "a strategy for further co-ordinated action to simplify the regulatory environment."

Sustainable Development Strategy

In June 2001 the European Council agreed to “a strategy for sustainable development which completes the Unions political commitment to economic and social renewal, adds a third, environmental dimension to the Lisbon strategy and establishes a new approach to policy making.” It also noted that the Commission would come with “mechanisms to ensure that all major policy proposals include a sustainability impact assessment covering their potential economic, social and environmental consequences.”

Competitiveness Council

In June 2002 the European Council created the Competitiveness Council as “a response to the need for a more coherent and better co-ordinated handling of matters closely related to the competitiveness of European enterprises”. The Council merges the former Internal Market, Industry and Research Councils.

Better Regulation

In June 2002 the Commission released its Communication on Better Regulation – “An Action Plan for Simplifying and Improving the Regulatory Environment”^[1]. The Communication identifies 16 measures, for instance better public access to legislation under preparation, a more appropriate use of legislative instruments (more co-regulation, self-regulation, voluntary agreements etc.), simplifying and reducing Community legislation, and ensuring the quality of legislation adopted (with impact assessments of “substantial” amendments). The ultimate aim of these measures is: “to ensure a high level of legal certainty across the EU, even after enlargement, enable economic and social operators to be more dynamic and thus help to strengthen the Community's credibility in the eyes of its citizens. The aim is not to deregulate the Community or limit its scope for action.”

In February 2003 the Commission launched a Communication on “Updating and Simplifying the Community Acquis”^[2]. The objective of this “rolling programme” is:

• “The removal of “dead wood” - legal texts that are obsolete and outdated - leading to considerable reduction in the volume of the Community acquis without changing the legal status,
• Rewriting legal texts to render them more coherent and
  understandable, again without changing the legal status,
• Improving the presentation of the Community acquis and developing more user-friendly access to consult and use Community law and
• The beginning of a long-term process of gradual modernisation and simplification of existing legislation and policies – not to deregulate or cut back the acquis but to replace past policy approaches with
  better adapted and proportional regulatory instruments.”

Impact Assessments

In June 2002 the Commission released a Communication on Impact Assessment (IA)^[3]. The objectives are to consider the "effects of policy proposals in their economic, social and environmental dimensions," and on whether they "simplify and improve the regulatory environment".

The Council’s Environmental Integration Strategy

In November 2002, the Competitiveness Council adopted a report on the follow up to the European Council in Gothenburg and the World Summit in Johannesburg^[4]. The report mainly recalls the 15 not very ambitious objectives, actions and indicators set out in the environmental integration strategy submitted to the Gothenburg European Council^[5]. The report also recognises the “need for follow-up to the Summit held in Johannesburg in September 2002, in particular the adoption of the principle of a ten-year plan on means of sustainable production and consumption.” Finally it recognises the need to update the Strategy’s objectives, actions and indicators. This updated strategy on environmental protection and sustainable development should be adopted before the end of 2003, by which time the Council should also report on further progress achieved.”

Spring European Council 2003

In 2003 the European Council stressed that “Economic and social development will not be sustainable in the long run without taking action to curb environmental pressures and preserve natural resources”. Accordingly, the European Council also stressed that the EU “should enhance the effectiveness and coherence of existing strategies and instruments”. This should be done “by strengthening the Cardiff process on integrating environmental considerations into sectoral policies and developing overall and sector-specific decoupling objectives; as well as by improving environment related structural indicators and monitoring progress”.

European Council, October 2003

In the conclusions from the European Council in October 2003 it is stated that “EU legislation should not be a handicap to EU competitiveness compared to that of other major economic areas”. The conclusions continue: ”To this end the Commission is invited to take into account the consequences of proposed EU legislation on enterprises through providing a comprehensive impact assessment. The forthcoming proposal on chemicals, which will be examined by the Competitiveness Council in co-ordination with other Council configurations, will be the first case for implementing this approach, taking in particular into account its effects on SMEs.”

Communication on an Integrated Approach to Competitiveness

In November 2003 the Commission adopted a Communication on “Some Key Issues in Europe’s Competitiveness – Towards an Integrated Approach”^[6]. Here the Commission states, that ”a competitive European economy will give us the means to support our social model and to ensure a high level of consumer, health and environmental protection, thus enabling us to enjoy a high quality of life and to raise our standards of living.”

The Commission stressed that “the European institutions and the Member States each have important roles to play as “guardians of competitiveness”. The right framework conditions for a competitive European economy should be realised by carrying out impact assessments on major Commission proposals and ensure “that the impact assessment process continues as proposals advance through the different stages of the legislative process”. On the basis of a screening carried out in 2003 the Commission points out the following potential synergies between competitiveness and environmental policy:

“Exploring the scope for voluntary alternatives to regulation, developing a sustainable production policy and analysing the conditions for further development of eco-industries, and balancing the short-term costs and the long-term gains of enhanced environmental protection.” The Commission intends to report more extensively on the results of this screening process at the beginning of 2004.

Competitiveness Council, March 2004

In its input to the Spring European Council the Competitiveness Council committed itself to undertake during 2004 an evaluation of selected key current or emerging proposals across Council formations as to how they affect the competitiveness of enterprise. By the end of 2004 the Council will suggest priorities for screening of relevant elements of the existing body of EU legislation in terms of its impact on competitiveness, and it will review and enhance the competitiveness dimension of the extended impact assessment process.

In relation to “the risks of de-industrialisation and de-localisation”, the Council points at “upcoming environmental commitments” as the only specific example of “competitiveness and restructuring challenges”. The Council fails to give examples of positive synergies between environmental commitments and competitiveness. It doesn’t even mention the most important environmental measure in the Commission’s Spring Report^[7]: The Environmental Technology Action Plan.

Finally the Council demands to be “fully involved in the process of determining commitments to be made under the next phase (post 2012) of the Climate Change Strategy with a view to safeguarding the competitiveness of European industry”.

Spring European Council 2004

The European Council in Brussels welcomed “the recent four Presidency initiative on better regulation^[8] and calls on the Council to pursue a programme of actions to drive this forward over the coming year”. It also welcomed “the Commission's commitment to further refine the integrated impact assessment process, working with the Council and the European Parliament within the framework of the Inter Institutional Agreement on better lawmaking, with a particular emphasis on enhancing the competitiveness dimension, and to develop, in co-operation with the Council, a method to measure administrative burdens on business.”

On environmental protection the European Council recognised that “Growth, to be sustainable, must be environmentally sound. Through better policy integration and more sustainable consumption and production patterns, growth must be decoupled from negative environmental impacts.”

It also reaffirmed the Union's commitment to delivering on the Kyoto Protocol target and looked forward to “considering medium and longer term emission reduction strategies, including targets, at the 2005 Spring Council”. In preparation for this discussion, it invited the Commission to prepare “a cost benefit analysis which takes account both of environmental and competitiveness considerations.”

The European Council welcomed the Commission’s Environmental Technologies Action Plan, called for its rapid implementation and invited the Commission and the European Investment Bank to explore the mobilisation of the range of financial instruments to promote such technologies.

The European Council appointed Wim Kok, former Dutch Prime Minister, as chairman of a high-level group commissioned to carry out an assessment of the state of the Lisbon strategy. This high-level group is supposed to help the Commission prepare proposals for the mid-term review of the Lisbon strategy to be included in its Spring Report to the European Council in March 2005. The group will report to the Commission before 1 November 2004.

Finally, the European Council called on Member States to build national Reform Partnerships involving the social partners, civil society and the public authorities. These partnerships should promote complementary strategies for change, addressing the broad range of policies - economic, social and environmental – encompassed by the Lisbon Agenda. These strategies should be reflected in clear national policies and objectives and should be taken into account by Governments in the course of preparing national contributions to the mid-term review of the Lisbon agenda.

Communication on Industrial Policy for an Enlarged Europe

On 20 April 2004 the Commission adopted a Communication on “Fostering structural change: an industrial policy for an enlarged Europe”^[9]. The Commission shows that there is no proof of a generalised process of de-industrialisation. That said, according to the Commission “European industry is having to face up to a process of structural change which is beneficial overall and which should be encouraged, in particular by policies that facilitate the development and use of knowledge”.

The Commission points to an industrial policy to accompany the process of industrial change consisting of the following actions:

1) A regulatory framework that is favourable to industry: The Communication recognises that integrated impact assessments should cover all three pillars of sustainable development. At the same time it proposes to deepen the evaluation of competitiveness aspects, including regulation’s cumulative impact on certain sectors (for instance the car industry). REACH is used as an example of better consultation. The Communication proudly announces that the changes of REACH after the Internet consultation lead to a saving of 80% of the direct costs to industry. It doesn’t tell that it also led to less effective measures for controlling chemicals.

2) Better exploitation of the synergies between Community policies having an impact on industry’s competitiveness: The “development of a policy of sustainable production” is seen as a positive contribution to industrial competitiveness.

The Commission also describes an analytical exercise on synergies between environment and competitiveness that came to the following conclusions:

By forcing the interested parties to take account of the growing scarcity of environmental resources, environmental policy can contribute to a better economic efficiency. However, whilst potentially improving the efficiency of this allocation of resources, the policy also has significant implications in terms of distribution, therefore creating “winners” and “losers”.

The final result of environmental regulation, in terms of cost, is that, for certain companies and sectors, production is more expensive. If it is important to have a correct idea of the costs of environmental regulation for companies, for the latter, what counts are the effects of these costs on innovation capacity, profitability, prices and demand dynamics. These effects depend to a large extent on: 1) the type of regulation (i.e. how this affects the inputs and the production process of the finished product); 2) the way in which the company affected can finance pollution-reduction technologies; and 3) market structures (demand elasticity, level of exposure to international competition...).

In terms of advantages, the final result of environmental legislation is that some companies or sectors benefit from positive effects in terms of demand and employment that would not have happened in the absence of such regulation. This regulation should also lead to reductions in input costs, both for the regulated industries (by encouraging a better use of resources) and for the industries that, in the end, benefit from inputs that are less polluted and the reduced costs in terms of worker health and public health.

Under the heading of “Reconciling better sustainable development with competitiveness” the Commission points out three actions:

1)      Creating the conditions for sustainable production: In 2004, the Commission will propose a political framework designed to promote sustainable production at enterprise level. Its aim seems very vague.

2)      Promoting clean energies and technologies: The Communication only mentions the Environmental Technology Action Plan. There are no specific initiatives.

3)      Encouraging social dialogue: Here the Commission only mentions “social partners”.

Regarding the “international dimension of environmental policy” the Commission will “define principles which will ensure, during the negotiation of multilateral environmental agreements, a better balance between the three pillars of sustainable development. This will allow taking into account more fully considerations of competitiveness or the cost-benefit ratio in the Commission’s negotiating mandate, and to ensure that the Union’s international commitments are compatible with its internal legislation.”

Competitiveness Council, May 2004

The Competitiveness Council on 17-18 May adopted conclusions on competitiveness and innovation and on better regulation. Prior to the Council meeting the EEB gave its recommendations on the basis of draft Council conclusions. Only one relevant change appeared in the final conclusions. The Council now acknowledges that better regulation “must take account of economic, social and environmental aspects of sustainable development”.

Stocktaking of the Cardiff process

On 1 June 2004 the Commission published a Working Document on “Integrating environmental considerations into other policy areas – a stocktaking of the Cardiff process”^[10]. The document gives a very general overview of the political commitments in different sectors and the progress to date. It doesn’t go into detail with the quality or environmental impacts of the actions taken (or the lack of action) in the different sectors. It simply concludes that the Cardiff process has failed to deliver fully on expectations. Environmental integration requirements are still largely to be translated into further concrete results for the environment.

Only two “milestones to date” are mentioned for the Competitiveness Council: The adoption of the Directive on greenhouse gas emissions trading (was in fact adopted by the Environment Council) and the Adoption of the two directives on public procurement. 11 actions by the Commission are mentioned: 9 communications/guidance documents and two legislative proposals (REACH and the batteries directive).

The document points to the following challenges and opportunities ahead for environmental integration in Competitiveness policy:

• Adoption of REACH
• Communication on Sustainable Production (planned for 2004)
• Thematic strategy on waste prevention (planned for 2005)
• Action Plan on Innovation
• New Programme on the Competitiveness of Enterprises
  (to be adopted 2004)
• Adoption of the framework Directive on Eco-design of Energy Using Products
• Review of the Community Guidelines on State aid for Environmental Protection
• Proposal from the Commission to restructure the tax
  bases of the annual circulation and registration taxes in order to make passenger car taxation more CO2-efficient.

The documents end by pointing at several general shortcomings of the Cardiff process and proposals for revitalising the process.

What should the EEB do about it?

Events, actors and processes to influence

Competitiveness Council

2-3 July 2004: Informal Council on Innovation
24 September 2004: Council meeting

Environment Council

Informal Council on 16-18 July in Maastricht with Environmental Technology as one of the main themes.

November European Council

The European Council on 5 November will deal with the Better Regulation programme.

Wim Kok Group

Wim Kok’s high-level group will report to the Commission by 1 November 2004. The group received a very broad mandate from the European Council and it’s report is expected to become a decisive factor to the mid-term review of the Lisbon Strategy.

The Group’s 13 members are:

• Mr Wim Kok (Chairman), former Prime Minister of the Netherlands, Chairman of the Task Force for Employment in Europe.
• Mr Romain Bausch, President and CEO SES Global, Luxemburg.
• Mr Niall Fitzgerald, Chairman of Unilever, co-Chairman of the
  Transatlantic Business Dialogue.
• Mr Antonio Gutiérrez, Socialist member of the Spanish Congress,
  former Secretary-General of the CCOO trade union.
• Mr Will Hutton, Chief Executive of the Work Foundation,
  Governor of the London School of Economics, author, leader writer.
• Ms Anne-Marie Idrac, Chairwoman of the RATP (Paris public transport system), Chairwoman of the European Movement-France, former
  Minister of Transport.
• Ms Wanja Lundby-Wedin, Chairwoman of the Swedish Trade Union Confedération.
• Mr Thomas Mirow, Hamburg City Councillor, responsible for economic affairs, former management consultant.
• Mr Bedrich Moldan, Chairman of the Environment Centre at the Charles University in Prague, former Czech Minister of the Environment.
• Mr Luigi Paganetto, Professor of economics at the University of Rome.
• Mr Dariusz Rosati, Professor of economics at the Central School of Commerce, former Minister of Foreign Affairs.
• Mr Veli Sundbäck, Vice-President of Nokia-Finland, Member of the
  Bureau of the United Nations Information and Communication Technologies Task Force.
• Mr Friedrich Verzetnitsch, Chairman of the ÖGB trade union.

The European Commission

Recommendations for the Commissions work on competitiveness and environment in EEB’s welcoming letter etc.

The European Parliament

The new European Parliament has four Committees dealing with different aspects of the Lisbon Strategy and competitiveness: 1) Employment and Social Affairs, 2) Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, 3) Industry, Research and Energy and 4) Internal Market and Consumer Protection. It is still to be seen how the Parliament will organise its work on the Lisbon Strategy. The EEB could give recommendations to the Parliament’s Conference of Presidents on how to work with the Lisbon Strategy/the SD Strategy.

National Reform Partnerships on the Lisbon Strategy

Check if they exist. If they do – get involved!

Key messages (to be developed further before the September Council)

COMPETITIVENESS AND INNOVATION

A strong environmental policy is a prerequisite for competitiveness. Strict and effective environmental regulation will enhance ressource efficiency and make European companies more competitive, not less.

The competitiveness of a country or a region comes from the productivity by which it utilizes its resources in the form om natural resources, capital and labour. And a key driver for ressource efficiency is strict environmental protection requirements.

New environmental regulation would inevitably raise costs to companies if technology, products, processes and consumer needs were all fixed. But European companies operate in the real world, not in the static world of much economic theory. They are constantly finding innovative solutions to pressures of all sorts. From competitors, consumers, global market trends, and environmental regulation. A truly competitive industry is more likely to take up new environmental targets and regulations as a challenge and respond to it with innovation. An uncompetitive industry may not be oriented toward innovation and may tend to fight all new regulation.

Strict environmental regulation is needed to:

Create pressure that motivates companies to innovate

Alert and educate companies about likely ressource ineffeciencies and potential areas for technological improvement

To raise the likelihood that innovation in general will be environmentally friendly

To level the playing field during the transition period to innovation-based environmental solutions, ensuring that one company cannot gain position by avoiding environmental investments.

In the coming months the EEB should develop argumentation in more precise terms about:

1.      what is the risk for competitiveness if we neglect the environment?

2.      specific examples of how environmental policies bring benefits for competitiveness.

Competitive companies will innovate and adapt to structural change. Stake more on these winners, and stop protecting old fashioned and uncompetitive industry.

“Business as usual” will not make EU the world’s most competitive economy. The EU shouldn’t protect every company or sector’s competitiveness at any price. There will always be industrial winners and loosers no matter if global market trends or strict environmental protection requirements are driving structural change.

The EU has an important choice to make. Will the EU continue to defend the interests of old fashioned companies who spends most of their environmental expenses on fighting environmental regulation and not on finding innovative solutions. Or will it ensure the best possible framework conditions for innovative companies who recognise environmental improvements as an economic and competitive opportunity. It can’t do both.

The demand for environmental technology must be strengthened with regulation and market based instruments.

Environmental technologies are key to creating synergies between environmental protection and competitiveness. Figures from 2001 show that total EU and Candidate Countries eco-industries supplied some 193 Billion euro of goods and services a year. Direct employment in these industries amounted to over 2,7 million jobs. These figures will grow even more as a consequense of the enlargement and the fact that the new Member States shall comply with EU’s environmental acquis.

The EEB welcomes the Commission’s Environmental Technologies Action Plan (ETAP) and we urge the Competitiveness Council take this strategy fully into account in its work on competitiveness and innovation. However, the Action Plan has some shortcomings that needs to be dealt with in future work:

ETAP ignores the fact that environmental legislation and enforcement of this is a key driver for environmental technology. Furthermore, ETAP doesn’t deal sufficiently with the demand for environmental technology. Increasing the supply and development of environmental technology through R&D and investments won’t help much if it the technolgy won’t be sold in the end. Therefore the EU needs to ensure that the framework conditions for eco-industries are improved through improved environmental legislation and market based instruments like green public procurement and tax incentives. If the EU should be the world’s most competitive economy by 2010, we need a much stronger focus on environmental technologies with immediate diffusion potential rather than grand visions for future.

BETTER REGULATION

Policy makers and regulators should focus on “how” instead of “if”. Environmental regulation should be based on clear environmental targets and objectives in order to give companies a predictable and stable framework for investments.

What kind of environmental regulation would we like to see in the future? The EEB should work on some recommendations for the September Council?

Impact Assessments must take into account the benefits of environmental regulation and the costs of inaction. Pure competitiveness proofing/business impact assessment is unacceptable because they ignore a number of important societal impacts.

The EEB insists on full integration of environment protection requirements into all policy areas, as Article 6 of the EC Treaty requires. This will potentially benefit competitiveness and stimulate innovation. The use of impact assessments should be improved in the following ways:

• Full impact assessments should be carried out for competitiveness policies,
• All impact asssessments should start with clear sustainable development objectives,
• Long term environmental impacts should be assessed and described as thoroughly as economic impacts,
• Impact assessments of environmental regulation should look at the full economic benefits to society – not just the costs of polluting industries,
• The Commission’s impact assessment system should be far more transparent and accessible.

DELIVER ON EXISTING COMMITMENTS

The Competitiveness Council should update its strategy on environmental integration as a contribution to the mid-term review of the Lisbon Process.

Besides updating the strategy’s objectives, actions and indicators, the update should include targets for decoupling of economic growth and environmental impacts as required by the European Council in March 2003.

Contacts

Michael Minter, mm@dn.dk, Tel.: +45 39 17 40 57
John Hontelez, hontelez@eeb.org, Tel.: + 32 2 289 10 91
Pendo Maro, pendo.maro@eeb.org, Tel.: + 32 2 289 13 02”

1.3.3 Høringssvar om EU's rammeprogram for konkurrenceevne og innovation (7. februar 2005)

Afsendt: 7-02-2005
DN-journalnr.: 3-32 / 019756

Til:

European Commission
Entr-consultation-cip@cec.eu.int

Tekst:
“Response to stakeholder consultation on
The Framework Programme for Competitiveness and Innovation (CIP)

The Danish Society for Nature Conservation has read the Commission’s consultation document on a framework Programme for Competitiveness and Innovation (CIP) with interest. We welcome the programme’s objective to encourage innovation and sustainable use of resources, but we have some reservations and comments on specific parts of the programme.

General comments

If EU want to meet the Lisbon objective of becoming the most competitive and innovative economy in the world, we will have no other option than to exploit the planet even more or fundamentally change the way we do business. Without an absolute decoupling of economic growth from resource use and pollution, more growth means less nature and environment. We need to become dramatically more efficient in our use of land and other natural resource, inside and outside Europe.

Therefore, we don’t agree with the consultation paper’s finding that the market provide most responses to a competitive and innovative economy. Today, serious market failures (and policy failures) are preventing the effective uptake of eco-efficient technologies and production processes. If the market should really work for the environment we need coherent actions at the EU-level and at the national level promoting: Internalisation of environmental costs in market prices, tax shifts from use of labour to use of natural resources, green risk capital for SME’s, green loans and subsidies and regulation which drives innovation by setting higher performance standards.

Finally, we would like to question the use of the competitiveness concept in the programme. Is the objective to promote the competitiveness of each single company in Europe, specific sectors, specific countries or the whole EU region – and in what timeframe? In our point of view it must be recognised that there is “good” and “bad” competitiveness. It is not in the public good if the EU protects every company or sector’s competitiveness at any price. There will always be industrial winners and losers no matter if global market trends or necessary environmental protection requirements are driving structural change.

Objective 1: Encourage innovation and sustainable use of resources

The Danish Society for Nature Conservation supports this objective and we welcome the underlying objectives to:

• “encourage the assessment of the technical and economic viability and market potential of new technologies, including energy and resource efficient technology;
• improve energy and resource efficiency by demonstrating the viability and stimulating the wider uptake of proven eco- and energy-efficient technologies and renewable energy sources.”

Instead of the strong focus on assessments and demonstrations we would, however, like to see a much stronger focus on EU measures to increase the efficient uptake of eco- and energy efficient technologies and production processes.

CIP doesn’t deal sufficiently with the demand for environmental technology and environmentally friendly production processes. Increasing the supply and development of environmental technology through R&D and investments are important. But it won’t help much if it the technology won’t be sold in the end. Therefore CIP should also aim at ensuring that the framework conditions for eco-industries are improved through market based instruments like green public procurement, green subsidies and tax incentives. The programme should also have a strong focus on environmental technologies and production processes with immediate diffusion potential.

Objective 2: Ensure the mastery and best use of ICT

No comments.

Objective 3: Improve SME’s access to finance

We welcome the underlying objective to “help to bridge market gaps in SME’s finance, including investment in knowledge related activities and innovation such as eco-innovation”.

CIP would integrate a number of existing and planned Community programmes, amongst others activities on the promotion and demonstration of environmental technologies covered by the Life programme and the promotion of renewable energy and energy efficiency covered by the Intelligent Energy for Europe Programme.

Without any indications of the budget of CIP and the allocation of money to its different purposes it is very difficult to judge the added value of integrating these two environment programmes in CIP. The Danish Society for Nature Conservation can only approve of such integration if it is guaranteed that sufficient funds will be allocated to financing the environmental objectives of the programme, and if the innovation activities as such will be guided by sustainable development objectives.

In addition, NGO’s should be able to play a role in the strategic programming guidelines of CIP, as well as the “on the ground” operation of the programme, in order to ensure policy coherence and integration.

Objective 4: Economic and administrative reform for more entrepreneurship and a better business environment

No comments.

Yours sincerely

Michael Minter, Environmental Policy Officer
Direct tel. +45 39 17 40 57, mm@dn.dk”

Footnotes

^[1] COM(2002)278

^[2] COM(2003)71

^[3] COM(2002)276

^[4] 14489/02

^[5] 8970/01

^[6] COM(2003)704

^[7] COM(2004)29

^[8] Initiative of Ireland, Netherlands, Luxembourg, UK

^[9] COM(2004)274

^[10] COM(2004)394

| Forside | | Indhold | | Forrige | | Næste | | Top |

Version 1.0 Juli 2008, © Miljøstyrelsen.