Navigation path

Left navigation

Additional tools

Communication on Implementing EU environment legislation – Questions & Answers

European Commission - MEMO/12/159   07/03/2012

Other available languages: none

MEMO/12/159

Brussels, 7 March 2012

Communication on Implementing EU environment legislation – Questions & Answers

  • The Commission published a Communication on implementing EU environment law in 2008. Why do we need another one in 2012?

The two communications are complementary but distinct. The 2008 Communication centred round the strategic use of enforcement powers by the Commission to tackle breaches of EU environment law. The focus of the 2012 Communication is about how to improve implementation at Member State level and collectively achieve better environment on the ground. The new Communication contains ideas that will help Member States improve their performance and is an expression of the Environment Commissioner's wish to be "strictly helpful, helpfully strict".

  • Can the focus on implementing EU environment legislation be really justified in a time of austerity?

Implementing EU environment law is cost-effective. Studies show that when factors such as health costs are taken into account, non-implementation actually costs more than implementation.

General examples:

  • The phase-out of dangerous chemicals has significant environmental and health benefits. Prudent assumptions are that the total health benefits would be in the order of magnitude of €50 billion over next 30 years. The costs of implementing the legislation are estimated to be €4-5 billion in total.

  • 20 % - 50 % of the European population lives in areas where the air quality breaches European limit values. The estimated annual costs in terms of health expenditure or days of work lost through illness run to billions of Euros.

Location specific examples:

  • Benefits related to the implementation of the Natura 2000 network in France were estimated to be seven times higher than costs which were calculated at €142 per hectare and year.

  • A programme to restore several wetlands in the Danube river basin will cost €183 million but will retain vital adaptive ecosystem functions and will likely lead to earnings of €85.6 million per year.

Apart from serving an overall objective that is cost-effective, several ideas in the Communication represent approaches that have stand-alone economic benefits. Placing more environmental information online, for example, should contribute to the knowledge economy and fit with a wider emphasis on e-government.

  • What happens next? The Communication mentions the 7th Environmental Action Programme (EAP) – what is the link? Will the Commission move forward with specific legislative proposals?

The 7th EAP will cover issues other than implementation but implementation will be a key overarching theme. Stakeholder views on the ideas set out in the Communication will be taken into account in the formulation of the 7th EAP proposal (which will appear later in 2012). In addition, some ideas in the Communication may lead to specific legislative proposals with respect to inspections for instance.

  • One of the two main themes of the Communication is knowledge. What does this mean, why is it important and how can it be improved?

"Knowledge" means information on the state of the environment and information about how EU environment laws are implemented. This sort of knowledge is important for all sorts of reasons. Citizens need to have confidence that EU environment laws are working in practice in their neighbourhood. Environmental authorities and professionals need to have access to information that shows where and how they should be devoting their efforts and resources. EU institutions and the European Environment Agency (EEA) need to analyse and present the picture at European level. Broadly speaking, the Communication draws attention to the benefits in terms of transparency, efficiency and usefulness of having more and better information available online.

  • The Council has been expecting the Commission to move forward with SEIS (Shared Environmental Information System). The knowledge part of the Communication refers to SEIS but what exactly is happening with the SEIS Implementation Plan and how will this tie in with the follow-up to the Communication?

SEIS forms part of the background to the Communication and is central to how the Commission proposes to improve knowledge in the field of the environment. SEIS is key because it recognises that improving knowledge requires co-ordinated progress across several fronts – in relation to the rules covering the creation and dissemination of environmental information, in the streamlining of reporting provisions, and in the way that information and communication systems are set up and interact with each other. A SEIS Implementation Plan explaining the state-of-play and setting out how improvements can be made is close to completion and is due to be presented around summer 2012. This should underpin the goal of improving environmental knowledge.

  • How do the EEA, JRC and Eurostat fit into all of this?

JRC and Eurostat are part of the Commission. They work closely with the Commission's Environment Directorate-General on issues to do with monitoring techniques and statistics. The Commission also cooperates closely with the EEA which has a growing role in supporting the analysis of Member State implementation reports.

  • What does the Communication mean exactly by Structured Implementation and Information Frameworks (SIIFs) and how will the Commission support these?

Each individual EU environment law – whether it deals with end-of-life vehicles or drinking water supplies or any other subject areas – is there to improve how the world works. These improvements can only be properly understood by citizens – in particular as regards their own localities – if they have a clear picture of the key actions being carried out to implement those laws.

To give just one example, EU drinking water rules aim at providing citizens with safe drinking water. Providing safe drinking water involves a chain of interventions including protection of the drinking water source (groundwater, lake, river), physical abstraction, treatment to remove any harmful bacteria and other types of contamination, monitoring of the distribution pipework to avoid leaks and waste, infrastructure investments and measures such as water pricing to help avoid wasteful use of water. It can be time consuming to obtain joined-up information on how all of these interventions fit together. A SIIF would aim, together with the range of SEIS initiatives, to help Member States set up transparent information systems that make this information accessible online. For example, one would be able to identify on a map abstraction points, source protection zones, treatment plants and distribution networks and have links to related information such as leakage reduction programmes.

Citizens, experts and businesses would all benefit from such transparency. The Commission's role would be to assist Member States in identifying the types of information that would feature in a given information system, so that similar information could be found across the EU.

  • The other main theme of the Communication is responsiveness. Why focus on this concept?

Knowledge on its own is not enough. Checks and balances are also crucial. Concrete implementation problems – such as a discharge that is causing illegal pollution or a required procedure that is not being followed – require concrete responses. The Communication recognises that there is no "magic bullet" for all such problems. Different actors need to be mobilised and it is necessary to support these in different but complementary ways. Hence the references to inspections and surveillance, complaint-handling, access to justice, network cooperation and partnership agreements.

  • What does the Commission envisage for inspections and surveillance? Will there be an EU environment inspectorate?

Considerable progress has already been made on criteria for "classic" industrial inspections within Member States, with a move from non-binding to binding criteria over the past decade. However, less progress has been made on criteria for dealing with issues such as wildlife crime and illegal developments and interventions. The Communication refers to several options for improving the situation, and these will be examined closely in the coming period. The Communication does not specifically propose the creation of an EU environment inspectorate but it refers to a number of possible options for complementing national efforts at the EU level.

  • Why is the Commission interested in criteria for complaint-handling within Member States? Isn't that covered by subsidiarity?

Citizens can already complain to the Commission and it has its own established complaint-handling procedure. The Communication draws attention to this issue because experience shows that citizens sometimes complain to the Commission out of frustration at the lack of a national remedy. It would be illogical to argue in this context that complaints at national level should remain a matter of subsidiarity. Indeed, in relation to consumers, precedents already exist for national grievance mechanisms. The Communication suggests that it would be worthwhile to explore how such mechanisms could be established in the field of the environment.

  • Why is the Commission still referring to an access to justice initiative when its 2003 proposal won very little Member State support?

Time may have stood still on the 2003 proposal, which has not progressed to become an adopted legal instrument, but this is not the case for access to justice. The Court of Justice of the European Union has made a number of decisions that go in the direction of greater access to national courts for citizens and NGOs. This case-law is welcome, but there is now considerable uncertainty about the best way to put it into practice. The Communication suggests that it is in the interests of all concerned to look again at the issue of access to justice.

  • Why is the Commission so interested in networks of experts? What can they contribute?

The Commission is interested in networks of experts because they facilitate sharing of knowledge and experience across the EU. The Commission has already had a positive experience of cooperation with IMPEL, the EU network of inspectorates, and has drawn on that network's expertise to lay the foundations for an EU instrument on inspection criteria.

  • What are partnership implementation agreements?

The Communication leaves this concept quite open. The context will determine the nature of such an agreement. However, the basic idea is to explore how targeted agreements with Member States can improve implementation and/or resolve specific problems. An example might be an agreement under which EU support is provided for a Member State information system that supports implementation.

See also IP/12/220


Side Bar

My account

Manage your searches and email notifications


Help us improve our website