1st Annual Conference, Brussels, 15–16 July 1993
of the European Environmental Advisory Councils EEAC

EU Environmental Policy and the Role
of Environmental Advisory Bodies

Hosted by the Environmental and Nature Council of Flanders, the Brussels Council for the Environment, and the Walloon Environmental Council

Objectives of the Conference

Hubert David, Vice-Chairman, Environmental and Nature Council of Flanders (MiNa-Raad)

The main arguments of Mr David's speech are given below.

Commissioner Paleocrassas could not attend the meeting due to other engagements, but Professor L J Brinkhorst will deliver Commissioner Paleocrassas's message during his lecture.

Three different groups of organizations have been invited. First, all the Advisory Councils for the environment have been invited. Searching these councils was a difficult task because various member states do not have such a council yet. Worth mentioning, though, is that most member states are busy establishing Councils for Sustainable Development in the scope of the Rio conference. Further, invitations have been sent to the European organizations representing the interests of an organization which is member of one of the Belgian regional councils for the environment. This implies that the European organizations which represent employees, industry, farmers, consumers, environmental groups have been contacted. Finally, a number of observers from countries or regions that are considering to set up Advisory Councils for the Environment have attended the meeting.

The Belgian presidency of the European Council in the second half of 1993 induced us to organize this meeting.

An additional, underlying reason is the growing awareness in the Belgian Regional Councils that the EC is becoming increasingly important as to national or regional environmental policies. Hence the various advisory councils for the environment in the EC should work out a system which would allow them to keep each other abreast of the main initiatives, plans and advices.

An other, very important reason for this meeting originates in the Fifth EC Environmental Action Programme. This programme explicitly stipulates that all social groups must be involved in the European environmental policy. It is therefore necessary that the Advisory Councils for the Environment can meet each other and exchange ideas.

A last, less important reason is closely linked to the Consultative Forum which will be set up in the near future. This forum will be consulting the Commission. It seems logical that the Advisory Councils for the Environment are looking for a method to advise and support the legislative power, namely the EC Council of Ministers. This enables the Advisory Councils for the environment to offset the Consultative Forum.

Advisory Councils in Europe: Role and Function

Gerrit H Vonkeman, Director, Institute of European Environmental Policy (IEEP), Brussels

Dr Vonkeman spoke about the role and function of the Advisory Councils for the Environment in Europe. The main points of his speech are reproduced below. The main text in Dutch is available at the Secretariat of the MiNa-Raad.

Two types of environmental councils can be distinguished, namely societal and scientific councils. The first type consists of representatives of the societal organizations whereas the latter type is composed of so-called "independent experts". These scientific councils are supposed to report the scientific point of view through individuals.

Societal Councils

Societal councils are present in countries in which there is a strong and professional environmental movement and an open and accessible decision making. They can be found in Belgium and in the Netherlands. A societal council can only function adequately if certain rules concerning the absence of "monopolies", representativeness, political independence and transparency, and open decision making are respected. Organizations that participate must accept the rules of the game and be prepared to strive for a consensus.

Apart from canalizing the societal opinion societal councils can have other important functions. The members are forced to confront their opinions with those of others and discuss them, to give their opinion on all elements and consequently also on themes introduced by other members, and often to disclose hidden agendas and arguments.

Moreover societal councils are one of the few opportunities for interest groups to meet each other. The fact that they are striving for a consensus, which is desirable, though not necessary in all circumstances, is another undeniably important characteristic. The calling in of a Advisory Council by politicians can be a good way to come to new viewpoints or solutions and an excellent opportunity for reflection and cooling off.

Scientific Councils

Scientific councils have been set up in order to advise on policies as well as on scientific matters. Science and scientists have always had an aura of independence, truth and certainty but "independent experts" are non-existent. Members of scientific councils should represent a wide range of societal and scientific backgrounds. Science can very seldom come up with clear-cut solutions. Uncertainty and subjective elements must be made public explicitly and must be accepted by politicians.

Scientific councils must see to it that they remain independent of the lines of policy that have been made or still are to be made, i.e. they must tackle the problems in their full extent, deal with all alternatives on an equal basis and prevent their opinions from being influenced by political or societal preferences.

International Dimension

Environmental problems become increasingly international. In order to secure the future, problems with respect to the environment, development and security, which are interrelated and are inextricably linked, are to be solved world-wide and on the long term. National decision making instances and consultative bodies pay insufficient attention to these problems whereas the international organizations lack the means and the competence to solve them. Advisory bodies for sustainable development are being set up on the national as well as on the international level. Close international cooperation is not only desirable but also necessary.

Conclusions and Recommendations

Each country should principally have one or more advisory councils that deal with the societal, scientific, international, sustainable and long-term aspects of conservation and environmental policy. The realization of this can differ in each country, but a solid societal anchoring is required everywhere. National (where appropriate regional) advisory councils should cooperate as much as possible internationally, at any rate within the scope of the European Community.

A central secretariat for advisory councils should be established. This secretariat could develop and manage a data bank centralizing the names and addresses of the advisory bodies and their members, task descriptions, the advice requests received, the advice requests that are being treated, the advice that has been given, activity programmes, annual reports, reactions of the authorities, forthcoming organization of seminars and the like for the benefit of the participants. The data bank could be set up in (one of the) consultative bodies or assigned to an external organization.

Apart from that the secretariat could play an active part by organizing an adequate information exchange. This can be effected by:

The previous point applies even more to the national councils for sustainable development. It goes without saying indeed that these councils will all be dealing with national sustainable plans and that they will be testing these against the same international principles and criteria. An additional special aspect is that the European Commission will elaborate a Sustainable Plan for the Community based on the Fifth Environmental Action Programme. Coordination is therefore not only required among member states but also on the Community level.

The experience of the Dutch Committee for Long Term Environmental Policy has shown that long-term working is not only a very difficult area, in which experience is very slowly accumulated, but also has a particularly international character. Apart from that, long-term working is much less political than to advise on topical issues that are ready to be decided on. Cooperation with others (as soon as you have found them) is given the complexity of the subject not only obvious but also relatively easy. Under normal circumstances the Committee for Long Term Environmental Policy would be able and probably prepared as well to play a coordinating role here.

It is crucial that the voices of the societal groups get through to the EC decision makers. As for the composition as well as for the practical work of the Consultative Forum it is desirable to bring about a good relationship with the national (where appropriate regional) advisory bodies. The same applies to the European Agency for the Environment. The Community could introduce very important initiatives for that purpose:

As it has been mentioned before it is crucial that national permanence plans and the EC plan are well geared to each other. The European Commission can play a major role here and put the above-mentioned initiatives into practice.

To date long-term activities have been pre-eminently international, relatively rare and taken up by different institutions. The European Commission could through the Agency for the Environment or by virtue of mobilizing the necessary means play a key role in the further elaboration of the network and the organization of common projects and meetings.

Conclusion

The global dimension of the environmental issues and the role of the decision making will become increasingly important. The issues are becoming more complex and interrelated. Prevailing trends must be stopped and much intellect and creativity are required to head for a sustainable society, which will never be reality unless it is supported and molded by the basis, the citizen and his societal and political organizations.

The higher the decision making level is, the larger the distance to the basis gets and the stronger the necessity to bridge it. Advisory councils, the societal ones in particular, can assume these bridging functions by virtue of their know-how, contacts and their search for consensus. The regional, national and European authorities will need the societal as well as the scientific advisory councils very hard.

The European Environmental Agency (EEA)

Mr M Cornaert, Deputy Head, European Commission

The survey of Mr Cornaert's speech follows hereafter.

The European Community Fifth Environmental Action Programme is based on the principle of participation and joint responsibility. As to participation the Commission hopes to come to a constructive dialogue in which the various aspects of the environment will be highlighted.

Objective information is indispensable to serve as a basis for the dialogue as well as for an adequate environmental policy. There is need for information concerning the condition of the environment, the pressure on the environment, the supporting power of the environment and the way the environment reacts to human activity. Collecting this information is the principal task of the European environmental agency.

About three years ago the directive setting up the European environmental agency was sanctioned. This directive defines the tasks, the structure and goals of the European environmental agency. To date this directive has not yet been implemented since, for political reasons, the seat of the agency has not been decided on yet. Fortunately the Commission did not wait for the establishment of the European environmental agency to gather already as much information as possible. A few examples will show what information is useful for the Commission.

The Community consists of 12 member states and over 500 regions which unfortunately collect and process their information independently. As this information is collected by different criteria, it is very difficult and complex to make comparisons.

It is still quite simple to determine what waters are fit for swimming as the member states can find the technical specifications in the concerning directive. It is the European environmental agency's task to centralize these dispersed data.

Things get a little bit more difficult when one wishes to know e.g. what each region has to contribute in order to reduce certain emission particles in the air. So as to measure the damage caused to eco-systems by e. g. acids, the agency has to create a model taking advantage of data on the climate and information about the supporting capacity of the eco-systems.

It gets even more complicated when apart from data on the environment one also needs information of other departments, which is more and more the case due to the principle of integration. Thus collaboration with other departments was necessary when one wanted to estimate the consequences of a possible vineyard clearance subsidy. Vineyards must not be cleared anywhere because of environmental reasons and in particular because of the danger of soil erosion. In order to assess this situation accurately one also needs data such as location of the vineyards, topography, rainfall...

These examples (and many others) prove that a great many data are required so as to outline and carry through an adequate environmental policy. The fact that part of the information needed is no direct information on the environment constitutes an additional problem. The conclusion to be drawn is that Europe clearly is in want of an institution that centralizes these data, coordinates initiatives and guarantees a standardization: the European environmental agency.

Evolution and Broadening of the Directive Concerning the Environmental Impact Assessment

Mr G Sapienza, Head of Sector, European Commission

Mr Sapienza dealt with the impact of the EEC Directive 85/337.

The Commission's Legislative Programme for 1993–94 concerning the environmental impact assessment (EIA) provides for revision and/or extension of the existing legislative texts.

Concretely, this means that still this year, the Commission is bound to present the following to the Council and Parliament alternatively or cumulatively:

It goes without saying that the proposals are closely interrelated and that the second one is to some degree the extension of the first one.

As to the first proposal, two major aspects may very well characterize the Commission's actions in the future:

Signing of the Espoo Convention about the Cross-border Impact

In February 1991, the Community and the twelve member states signed a convention on the evaluation of cross-border environmental impact. This convention, that is coherent with the Community directive, elucidates in what manner the bilateral relations between border states should be organized with respect to the consultation of the member states that can be seriously affected, the participation of those states, as well as of the public having an interest in the procedure for environmental evaluation.

Although the stipulations of this Convention are essentially compatible and even similar to the provisions of the Directive, it will be useful, for reasons of good administration, to "consolidate" these two texts by incorporating them into the existing directive.

Elaboration of the report on the implementation of the EEC Directive 85/337

This report was adopted by the Commission on April 2nd. It is a very detailed source of consultation on the procedures initiated on the national level, as well as an appreciation of the concrete implementation of these procedures in the member states.

With respect to this the report shows both the flaws and insufficiencies of the national legislation and the practical difficulties encountered by member states during the implementation of the Community Directive.

It equally shows that the evaluating procedure provided by this directive is not yet fully fruitful, since the process very often does not start early enough so as to give enough possibilities for the integration of larger alternating measures in the planning and design phase of the projects.

However, the help of this evaluation procedure is generally considered to be a very important factor for the preservation of the environment, not only in terms of the planning of projects, but also from the point of view of life quality.

Particularly, the formal participation in the process of project analysis of the authorities responsible for the environment, although this has not been entirely satisfactory, has brought about a greater problem awareness in respect of the protection of important biotopes inside the Community.

Finally, the report allows to identify the measures that should be taken on the Community and national level. It also allows to take full advantage of the environmental evaluation as an indispensable instrument so as to assure the integration of the environment into the other policies. This integration is required by Article 130 R. The report allows as well to achieve the objectives of the Fifth Action Programme.

It is obvious that the engagements for the moment entered into at Espoo and the experiences of the Commission with the report, will give rise to an adaptation of the procedure for the evaluation of the environment, as it is defined by the EEC Directive 85/337.

It is still too early to conceive of the probable contents of such an adaptation but generally speaking, it will be in line with the logic of the conclusion of both documents.

However, the Commission's actions in this field have recently been given new momentum through supportive measures.

From this year onwards, training programmes will be carried through within the scope of LIFE. These actions have been defined in a feasibility study that examines in detail the need for training, the persons involved, as well as the form these actions should take.

This study actually provides a frame of reference for both the member states and the Commission in respect of all training actions that are going on in EIA.

Because of the wide range of needs and the administrative terms that have to be respected for the LIFE financing, the whole of this year's demands cannot be fully satisfied. For this reason, it has been agreed upon that other demands can still be introduced in 1994.

Besides working on these training actions, the Commission will continue its work in the methodological field. Hence a series of studies is being launched on the following subjects:

These tasks will be effected in collaboration with the member states, given the fact that the Commission wishes to obtain results that can be shared by all, and at the same time avoid the multiplication of similar initiatives in member states.

Finally, the Commission has the ambition to support in collaboration with the member states the initiatives that are found to be of paramount importance for both the improvement of the performance of the EIA in the scientific field and for a better adaptation to the necessities for development in our countries.

Long-Term Environmental Policy in the Netherlands

Nico Nelissen, Chairman, Committee for Long-Term Environmental Policy (CLTM), Den Haag

Professor Nelissen spoke about the Dutch Committee for Long-Term Environmental Policy. The main text in English is available at the Secretariat of the MiNa-Raad.

The Dutch Committee for Long-Term Environmental Policy

The Dutch Committee for Long Term Environmental Policy was established in the course of 1988, with the task to prepare well documented advice on long-term developments that may influence the environment, and to indicate how environmental policy should deal with such developments.

The Committee consists of ten members. These members are experts which have an independent position from government. They have different disciplinary backgrounds and practical experience. The annual budget is about 260 000 ECU. The Committee meets once a month and has a small staff for administrative support.

The Committee's Strategy

As the name of the Committee already indicates, it is focusing on the long term. This means that the Committee is primarily interested in the first half of the 21st century.

It sees itself as an interface between research and policy. The Committee's principal strategy was to involve experts in the process of formulating long term environmental policy, based on a well defined and elaborated description and forecasting of environmental problems. The Committee can be seen as an infrastructure for generating "new" environmental knowledge, "new" environmental strategies and "new" environmental policies.

During the Committee's meetings a relatively large part of the discussion is implicitly or explicitly oriented toward three major topics, namely (1) the possibility of "knowing" the future; (2) the capacity of "controlling" the future and (3) the "makability" of the future.

The Committee's Main Results

The results of the first period (1988–90) were published in the book: "The Environment: Ideas for the 21st Century". The book is a co-production of a number of outstanding experts in the field of the environment and policy making. The Committee's general conclusion was that there is a necessity for radical changes.

All the CLTM expert studies confirm that the limit has been reached and that something drastic has to be done. No more time should be wasted discussing measures of minor importance.

According to the CLTM, the required process of change can be illustrated by the following five phases: environmental pollution as a side-effect (1), environmental pollution as a cost factor (2), the environment as a boundary condition (3), the environment as a policy determining factor (4) and the environment as an objective (5).

In the terminology used by the Committee, a change is not considered really radical until the development process has arrived at phase 3 or 4 (depending on the sector).

What is the Committee's conception of the 21st century? The Committee's opinion is that there is a need for radical changes in all sectors of social life: economy, culture, social structure, technology, agriculture, industry, traffic and transport, consumption, etc. All these radical changes together form an "environmental revolution" which in the Committee's opinion is taking place in some sectors and approaching in others, without always being aware of it.

The Committee's Methodology

The Committee's methodology can be described as generating the infrastructure for knowledge production. Experts had to make studies on different aspects and elements of environmental problems.

The leading problem was an analysis of the actual and future "oikos". The metaphor of the "oikos" was elaborated by using central concepts of building a house. So, the Committee formulated a foundation, produced cornerstone studies and building block studies, made some views from the scaffold and ended by placing the keystone.

The selection of the themes took place by the procedure of brainstorming in the Committee. After making an inventory of possible themes a selection was made.

During the working out of the study some Committee members, the so-called moderators, controlled the achievements as well as the accordance with the Committee's objectives.

After the study all the experts were invited to participate in a workshop in which an exchange of views took place and in which the authors could control if there was no overlap. The presentation of the book "The Environment: Ideas for the 21st Century" took place during a conference in which the different experts were allowed to explain their view to a big audience.

Within the administration at the national level the book had a great impact. The Committee's President and several authors were invited to give presentations about the studies made. To be sure that the Committee's work also had influence on the environmental policy of the administrations on the regional and local level a special conference was organized to exchange views with these target groups.

The Committee has been looking for means to popularize for a big audience. This appeared very difficult and in fact the Committee did not succeed in doing this. The information, the analysis and the recommendations were of a very sophisticated level.

The Committee's Work Self-evaluated

The Committee has made a self-evaluation and has come to the following conclusions:

In its first term (1988–90), which was completed with the report of expert studies, the Committee has made a serious attempt to outline the contours of long term environmental problems. On the basis of these studies, and by giving its own opinion, the Committee has attempted to indicate in what direction long term environmental policy should go.

For its second term (1991–93), the Committee has worked out a planning scheme in which the following topics will be considered:

  1. There will be made a "white book" of all positive initiatives to create "sustainable development". This means that there will be made an overview of all "signs of hope".
  2. A couple of studies will be worked out concerning the transformation of the existing society into an sustainable one.

Suggestions

In general terms one can say that the construction of a special Committee for long term environmental policy has a positive impact on the administration to think on the long term.

Another advantage of this formula is that the existing administration does not consider the Committee's vision and recommendations as a danger for the actual environmental policy. The administration considers the Committee's ideas an interesting vision for future policies.

In addition to this general finding, one can give some more detailed suggestions for long-term environmental committees in other countries.

The number of Committee members must not be too large. A total of ten persons seems to be the limit for workable conditions. Especially when the Committee consists of different disciplines this number seems to be the maximum. Multidisciplinarity is wanted to approach the problems from different point of views and to avoid a one dimensional look at reality.

The Committee's work should well be planned. A secretary board of at least two persons seems to be the minimum.

The Committee's President needs managerial qualities. He must be aware of the fact that experts have their own frame of reference, preferences and hobbies. His task to create a climate for scientific communication in which there is an open mind for different views.

A great attention should be paid to the Committee's products. Not only in the sense of the content of the product, but also in the way it is presented and to whom it is presented.

The risk of committees is that they are or become introvert. Success depends to a large extent on the Committee's ability to communicate with the "external world", especially with government and administration.

To influence the impact of the Committee's products it is necessary that the Committee members have a good relationship with key persons in the field of environmental policy. The members are the ambassadors of the intellectual product and have to emphasize the importance of the Committee's products.

Environmental Impact Assessment Studies in the Walloon Region from 1989 to 1992: First Evaluation

Mr B Dethier, Chairman, Environmental Impact Assessment Section, Walloon Environmental Council

Mr Dethier focused on the Environmental Impact Statement in the Walloon Region. The main points of his lecture are given below.

Following a 1985 European Directive, the Walloon Region has set up the procedure of carrying out Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) for a good number of new public or private investments in the Walloon domain.

The EIS are a creative tool: the report must specify how the author of the project has sought the least harmful solutions for the environment. In this respect, the EIS make it possible to reach the overall objective which was at the origin of the setting up of the project; the environment becomes a management criterion in industrial projects.

The EIS are an informative tool: the directive of 31/10/91 organizes the binding procedures for informing the citizens about the environmental consequences of public or private investment. All the data concerning the project can be consulted in the local administrations concerned. Thanks to the implementation of EIS, transparency is being achieved about the information provided by the various parties involved.

On has to deal, however, with a general context of distrust and there are no miracles. But attitudes are changing and property developers in particular are making special efforts to provide reliable scientific data. It should also be noted that since the environment is a recent concern, the EIS are an opportunity to become aware of the gaps of knowledge in this area.

Scientific research should be financed in order to facilitate the work of those responsible for carrying out EIS and to bring down their costs.

The EIS are a consultative tool: lawmakers wanted a formal framework to exist, where dialogue could be established between the property developer, the opponent to the project and the administrative authorities concerned (those expressing opinions and those taking decisions).

Consultation is undoubtedly the most perfectible aspect of EIS. Through lack of training, the actors take little advantage of the opportunity offered to them to find solutions that take better account of everyone's interests. Consultation meetings often turn into a dialogue of the deaf. Unrealistic demands and undisguised political attacks get the better of a constructive dialogue which would be more favorable to the development of solutions.

But there exists another place for consultation, the Walloon Council for the Environment, where the various scientific, political and social partners can meet. Less directly involved in the projects discussed, partners manage to get the best out of the procedure. By searching for common points through consensus processes, they increased their chances of having their opinion considered by decision makers.

The EIS are a decision aiding tool: all the data and opinions that the EIS procedure has been able to collect give relevant authorities the possibility of valorizing decisions taken in a democratic manner, thus avoiding the arbitrariness of solely taking into account the interests of one of the parties.

The EIS are also a controlling tool: the decision to accept a project are accompanied by a list of requirements, the fulfillment of which is placed under the control of officials.

To date, 63 EIS have been carried out since 1989. Projects concerning the processing and storage of waste take the lead in the total number of reports examined (32%). Second in line are projects concerning land planning (29%) in which motoring sports circuits have been the subject of 15 reports.

About 20% of all reports focus on the industrial processes for processing materials. Out of these 20%, the chemical industry takes the lion's share with 69% of reports.

The Community Funds and the Consequences for the Environment

Mr C Pleinevaux, Head of Unit, European Commission

Mr Pleinevaux dealt with the reforms of the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund. Here are the main points of his speech.

Structural Funds

At the reform of the Structural Funds, in 1988, a system was opted for in which the programmes took a central place instead of the projects.

The consequences of this fundamental option were that the monitoring worked out much more difficult. Other difficulties with which the Commission was confronted were:

Some investments had already started before a EIS was executed. In certain cases this led to postponement of the investment help.

Now the final phase of the second reform of the Structural Funds is reached. Because of the difficulties experienced by the Commission at the first reform, it was decided to improve the procedures and the system upon restructuring.

Thus every country involved should lay down an "environment profile" defining what policy the country involved will pursue to protect the environment, what environmental problems the member state has to cope with, what priorities with regard to the environment the member state wishes to solve with community funds and what kind of investment the member state made in the past. In this way, the Commission is able to assess the intentions and to check whether the presented environment programmes are in line with these political declarations. Perhaps this seems very simple and bureaucratic but in this way the authorities that used to totally neglect the environment, are now confronted with their policy options, problems and priorities in writing.

The second change is related to the indicators as to the environment. In consultation with the Department for Regional Management it was decided that the environmental investments should be accompanied by certain indicators that should be apt to measure the impact of the developing programmes on the environment.

Cohesion Fund

The Cohesion Fund that was started on 1 April 1993 will be fully operational when the Maastricht Treaty comes into effect. Up till now individual projects in the fields of environment and transport infrastructure have been supported. Here also, as in the Structural Funds, guarantees are provided in the field of environment protection. Up till now there have been no grounds to fear that for example EIS directives would not be respected.

Up till now sustainable development has not yet been a prerequisite for the introduction of projects. Preconditions to secure sustainable development may very well come into effect only by the beginning of next century.

LIFE is a very successful programme that is often misunderstood. LIFE serves to help finance investments. The programme is balanced between research and development of environment techniques on a larger scale. LIFE finances preventative projects so as to demonstrate the new approach of the Fifth Environmental Action Programme in practice. This policy is based on prevention, integration of the environment in other governmental fields and the adjustment of human consumption patterns.

Over the past few years it could be observed that the number of requests for research programmes in the field of the environment was increasing. There has also been a remarkable improvement in respect of the environment policy in the southern EU member states. A restrictive factor, however, is the lack of statistics. This clearly indicates the importance of the future Environmental Agency.

Elaboration of the Annual Report Concerning the Implementation of Directives in EU Member States

The Potential Function of National and Regional Advisory Councils

Mr L Krämer, Head of Unit, European Commission

Mr Krämer focused on the legal aspects of the environmental policy. The summary is given below.

The European Commission, especially the jurists that work for the Commission, experience every day that our knowledge on environment on the local, regional, national and EU level is insufficient. Few reliable dates are available on the situation, on the degree of pollution and the licenses that are requested or refused and the reasons why.

With regard to environment effect evaluation some 150 to 200 complaints are reported to the European Commission annually. Even a progressive country like the Netherlands had some 20 controversial projects.

The Bern Convention, an initiative of the Council of Europe that originated in the seventies, requires that countries take adequate measures for the protection of especially threatened species of animals, plants as well as their habitats. For certain reasons, which the speaker did not want to dwell upon, the European Commission does not examine whether or not the convention is observed in the EU, notwithstanding the fact that it was ratified by the EU. It would be rewarding to find out how the Walloon region proceeds e. g. as to the protection of species and their habitats. In case there is a report with regard to the implementation of the Convention, which is doubtful, its dates are most certainly to be scarcely distributed.

The problem related to the implementation of the European directives is no specific problem. Furthermore, EU directives and regulations concerning the environment are only one element in the whole of rules for the protection of the environment. It is of no importance if these rules stem from Brussels or elsewhere. The main point is, however, to protect the environment.

The European Commission determined in the early seventies that there should be a yearly report on the implementation of the directives to be drawn up by the member states.

In 1978 the European Commissioner responsible for the environment found that a special report with respect to the implementation of environment directives was necessary, because of the importance of the environment. The Commissioner published this report enumerating the violations. The European Commission organized a round table conference with the member states that did not respect the directives. The publication of the report caused a lot of protest as it was the first time ever that the member states got proof in writing that they did not respect the EU legislation. This led to large discussions in all EU organs.

In 1990 the European Commission published a Commission Report with a separate environment chapter. This report was an annex to the 8th annual report on the implementation of directives in the member states. Since it was now in the form of a commission report all tables that indicating which countries were offending the legislation had been removed. Everything was presented in a more neutral style. Consequently, this report was better received by the parties involved.

The Council of heads of state or government in Dublin (1990) requested an annual implementation report. This request was repeated in the Council of ministers in 1991. The European Parliament welcomed this report and decided to comment the annual reports.

In 1991 a report was written in the same manner as the one in 1990. The next report, the tenth one, no longer contained a separate annex and went back to the model in 1973. The report contains a general outlook on the implementation of the directives in the member states and contains, in addition to a chapter on the internal market, agriculture, etc., also a chapter on the environment.

With regard to the environment the report allows for the procedures laid down in Article 169 of the Treaty. This article provides in a procedure if the European Commission thinks that a member state did not comply with the regulations.

In the first instance a member state is given the opportunity to react to a complaint of the European Commission. If in the next stage the member state fails to comply sufficiently with the motivated advice, the European Commission can go to the Court of Justice. The stage in which the European Commission examines a case and/or has any objections and/or has decided to start a procedure but has not yet informed the member state by means of a formal resolution, is not mentioned in the report.

According to the European Commission, the sending of a notifying letter is a preliminary stage and according to the European Commission it has no sense to make this publicly known. There is an exception to this rule when the member state has not yet started to convert the directives into a national legislation or when the EU legislation is ignored by the member state.

The 8th Report showed that the European Commission experienced great difficulties in taking postponement measures, for example to stop works, etc.

Finally, the procedure that the European Commission follows (Article 169 of the Treaty) gives the Environmental Advisory Councils little opportunity to come to the fore. Even when the European Commission decided to send a motivated advice, it cannot be mentioned in the report as long as it has not been sent to the parties involved.

The Function of the Advisory Councils and the Consultative Forum in the European Community's Environmental

Professor L J Brinkhorst, Director-General DG XI, European Commission

Professor Brinkhorst focused on the role of the European Commission in a common environmental policy. The main arguments of his speech are given below.

First, Professor Brinkhorst expressed his gratitude for the invitation. He then read a personal message by Commissioner Paleocrassas:

I am delighted to be able to convey my support for this conference today. It has not been possible for me to join you for your meeting.

The subject of your conference is a timely one. The Fifth Action Programme of the European Community is now in the process of being implemented and one of the key elements of that programme is the need to associate all those concerned by the environmental decision making process as closely as possible to that process.

Advisory boards, such as those represented here today, clearly have a vital role to play. Since it is the case that in many of the European Community's member states the implementation of environmental policy is a matter for the regions, I welcome the participation of so many representatives from the regions of the Community.

The Belgian Advisory Councils are to be congratulated on this initiative and I look forward to my very discussions with all the Belgian Ministers of the Environment next week. I will take this opportunity to wish you every success for the remaining time of your conference and I look forward to hearing a report and conclusions.

The community environment policy underwent big changes. During many years the choice was to be made between environment on the one hand and economy on the other hand. However, more and more, despite the serious economic situation, it happens that environmental and economic development go hand in hand. During the G7 Summit in Tokyo, environment was not part of the agenda, but strikingly enough in the agenda item "economic developments" reference was made to environment in a positive sense, in that it is a sector with employment potentials. A similar signal could be observed in the European Summit in Copenhagen, where Commission President Delors explained his vision with regard to the recovery of the European economy and the reasons why Europe lags behind compared to the rest of the industrialized world. At the request of the Council the European Commission will present a White Book concerning the economic recovery by the end of 1993. One of the key elements in this White Book is concerned with the question what kind of developing model should be envisaged. How can we bring economy and environment closer together? In the past economic growth was considered to be necessary and environment was less of a priority. However, the idea that economy, employment and environment are not contradictory gains more and more ground.

At the moment there is still discomfort in Europe with regard to the European Community. The Belgian presidency has as its priority to soothe this discomfort as much as possible. In the meantime, however, it affects the Commission and its work. It is not only an European crisis but also a crisis of the member states. One can compare the present situation to the Magdeburg hemispheres, where two hemispheres form a unity when they are vacuum. One hemisphere then presents Europe and the other one the member states. It is clear that the economic crisis and the environmental problems cannot be solved on a national basis. The major question is: How can the Environmental Advisory Councils have a part in the European environment policy? One of the things that should be kept in mind is the fact that no one still claims that the environmental policy should be imposed. This means more attention has to be given to transparency, rethinking of the arbitration procedures, etc. The European Commission is blamed for being little democratic, whereas the administrations in some member states are even less democratic than the Commission.

The Fifth Environmental Action Programme forms a basis for the policy of both member states and the Community. Very often, the European Commission has the impression that it is only a programme for the Community. It is thought that the EU can draw up a programme but that it must not interfere with programmes of member states. This means that the top–bottom approach should be combined with the bottom–top approach. The European Environmental Advisory Councils can play an important part in this. Everyone agrees that everything should be better structured. This is also one of the goals of this meeting. Half of DG XI realized fairly soon the importance of transparency in general and especially for the environment. Energy, industry, transport all have their specific lobby groups. The directive concerning the easy access to information is an important step towards a more transparent Europe.

Regular consultations with all parties involved are already taking place. Also the increasingly extended network of regions (e. g. German Lander and Spanish regions...) that are represented in Brussels are consulted. Evidently, the advisory institutions of the EU, the Economic and Social Committee and the European Parliament, that fortunately is getting more decision power, are always asked for advice when the Commission presents a proposal. Through contacts with European MPs one can notice that MPs welcome the advice from other advisory organs, not as a substitution for advice from the European Parliament but as a means to augment the value of their own advice.

In the Fifth Environmental Action Programme the establishment of an Advisory Council and a study group is provided for. The study group consists of the Directors General of the Commission and evaluates the environmental policy. The mandate of the study group was determined in the last meeting of the ministers of environment. For the first time the Commission gives the European administration an element of joint responsibility.

As regards the Advisory Council, DG XI hopes to send the invitation to the members of this Forum before the beginning of the yearly holidays. A first meeting is to be held in Autumn. The Forum should be as representative as possible. On the other hand, the number of members should be restricted to guarantee a good functioning. The Commission finds that the group should have some 30 to 35 members. Hopefully, the frequency of meetings should be around two to three times a year. All of this will of course depend on the first meeting and wishes of the members. The Directors General of DG XI should (although this is not yet definitive) attend the meetings. The Forum is, certainly in the primary stage, an advisory organ of the European Commission. The Commission hopes that in this Forum useful discussions can be held and that the different parties will balance each other. It would be very useful if the NGOs would listen to the practical problems industry and workers are confronted with. Very often this part of the dialogue has not got a chance, which can lead to frustration on both sides.

Recently, an Advisory Council concerning eco-labeling has been established. The 1980/92 directive is the basis of it and the Advisory Council can already present positive results. The NGOs find that the European Commission has to pay the market value for their contribution and know-how. The European Commission, however, finds that the current contribution towards the costs of the NGOs is already very significant and that they can do little more in view of the restrictive means at their disposal. Nevertheless the European Commission hopes to come to a suitable agreement.

Closing remarks

Hubert David, Vice-Chairman, Environmental and Nature Council of Flanders (MiNa-Raad)

Apart from a few personal contacts in other conferences, no one here present knew one another 36 hours ago. This meeting was very significant in order to obtain a survey of the existing Environmental Advisory Councils in Europe. Representatives from countries or regions where no advisory councils for the environment have been active up till now have had the opportunity to make contacts and to observe the functioning of the existing Councils.

If it is decided that this initiative should be repeated it is of primary importance that a more profound survey of the present situation can be obtained. This implies that a study should be conducted on the functioning, composition, independence, decision procedures, etc of the advisory councils for the environment in Europe. To realise this an independent institute should take care of this study.

Mr Nelissen's and Mr Vonkeman's contributions on the long-term environmental policy in the Netherlands, made a deep impression on all the persons present. It would be a tremendous contribution if the Dutch guests drew up a memorandum in English and in French, in which recommendations of the Commission Long-Term Environmental Policy were formulated for other Councils and the European environmental policy.

Throughout this meeting it has become clear that the exchange of information is of paramount importance. The respective secretarial offices, that perform the real work, could vouch for this.

The Belgian regional Advisory Councils hope that their initiative will not end in Brussels but that one of the Environmental Advisory Councils present here may take over this task from them. For this purpose all possible information will be provided for.

Copyright © 2000-2004 by European Environment and Sustainable Development Advisory Councils, Den Haag. All Rights Reserved.