“ECCE BRUSSELS BRIEF”- A SPECIAL GREEN WEEK SUPPLEMENT WAS PUBLISHED in JUNE 2003

This Supplement covered some of the key issues which emerged from the European Commission’s Green Week: Environmental Liability, The European Commission Bathing Water Report, OECD Report on voluntary approaches to environment policy, the publication of a Commission Communication (and Consultation) on the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) Directive and a European Parliament Brief which set out mandatory targets proposed for packaging and packaging waste. The full supplement appears at the end of the June 2003 ECCE Brussels Brief. ECCE’s Brussels Brief is published regularly on www.eccenet.org . It may be found by selecting the menu option ‘News’ and then ‘ECCE Brussels Brief’.

Extracts from this supplement which relate to ongoing environmental issues are reproduced below. Updated information on the draft Bathing Water Directive appears in the October 2003 Brussels Brief - it is noted that a Directive is unlikely to be adopted until 2005 as a consequence of the elections expected in Spring 2004 in preparation for enlargement of the EU.A general source of information is the web-site of the European Commission’s Directorate General for the Environment: http://europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/environment/index_en.htm

Political agreement had still not been achieved when Green Week took place. The proposals for a Directive on Environmental Liability have been fraught with difficulty. Environmental Liability was one of the subjects on the Agenda of the 13^th June Environment Council. Outstanding issues to resolve included scope of application of the proposal and the scope of ‘mitigating factors’ which would give grounds for exemption or limiting operator liability. Currently a mandatory financial security system is proposed, contrary to the Commission’s initial proposal: this is opposed by a number of delegations. The definition of protected species and habitats is a further unresolved issue.

The Commission submitted its Proposal for a Directive on environmental liability for the prevention and remedying of environmental damage to Council on 21 February 2002. Based on the polluter-pays principle, it requires operators to take preventive action where there is an imminent threat of damage and remedial action at their own expense - when damage occurs. The proposal has been a long-time in the gestation, having been strongly contested by environmental groups and individual Member States over a number of years, following publication of a Commission Green Paper on Remedying Environmental Damage (COM(93)47. The current Proposal differentiates between certain activities (listed in Annex III) for which all damage is covered and others for which only damage to protected species and natural habitats is covered. Furthermore, it foresees the right of citizens to request that action is taken by competent authorities in cases where rights under the Directive are not being respected.

Following the adoption of the opinion of the European Parliament in May, the Presidency expressed a desire to reach a political agreement at the June Council and published a summary of issues under discussion:

· Financial security system: The Commission proposed that Member States may decide whether operations should be required to provide financial security for operational activities listed in the Proposal's annex. A number of Member States want to provide financial security through mandatory insurance schemes. The Presidency compromise proposes that mandatory insurance be introduced for certain activities after 5 years (for damage to land, water, protected species and natural habitats).

· Defence versus mitigating factors: the Commission proposed that owning a permit as proof that activities are carried out in a state-of-the-art manner should entitle an operator to exemption from liability. The Presidency is proposing that if an operator has a permit, took preventive measures and can prove that he was neither responsible for the environmental damage caused nor guilty of negligence, owning a permit can mitigate in his favour and allow him to pay lower remedial costs. But this will not provide for complete exemption.

· Subsidiary state liability: the competent authorities must ensure that operators take the necessary remedial and preventive measures. The Commission proposed that if an operator fails to do so, or is not capable of paying, the authority must take the necessary measures itself. However, some Member States consider that this should not be an obligation for them.

· Scope: delegations will debate whether or not operators should cover all prevention and remuneration costs when damage to protected species and natural habitats occurs.

· Definition of "protected species and natural habitats": some Member States feel that the Directive should only cover protected natural habitats and that protected species should be covered within the limits of these habitats. However, the Presidency supports the Commission's view that it should cover both natural habitats and protected species, as defined in the Birds and Habitats Directives

· Nuclear industry: Some Member States believe that nuclear energy should be included in the scope of the proposed Directive.

· GMOs: some Member States believe that damage caused by GMOs should be covered by the Proposal's terms of reference.

UPDATE: The full agreed text of the proposed directive on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage is on: http://register.consilium.eu.int

The latest Bathing Water report covers 13,626 seaside beaches and 5,773 fresh water areas. In 2002, almost 96% of coastal beaches respected the Directive’s quality criteria, in particular those dealing with contamination by faecal material. For inland bathing areas (i.e. lakes and rivers, the level of compliance was 91% in 2002.

The quality of bathing water in Member States is assessed by the European Commission in accordance with parameters set out in the 1976 Directive on Bathing Water Quality. Two microbiological parameters, which are indicators of faecal pollution and three physico-chemical parameters (‘aesthetic parameters’ which make the water look attractive to swim in) are the minimum imperative values. The Directive also sets out some higher guidelines which are not obligatory. Testing of samples should be made every fortnight, plus an additional sample 14 days before the start of the locally defined bathing season.

The European Commission presented a Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council (COM (2000)581) in October 2002. The proposal aims to improve health standards, ensure more efficient management (including greater active involvement by the public) and allow Member States greater flexibility in the way they implement the Directive. It is hoped that the proposed standards will reduce risk of contracting gastro-enteritis and respiratory diseases as a result of bathing by a factor of 2 to 3.

1. The revised Directive, proposed by the Commission in October 2002, should be adopted as

2. The current Directive (Directive 76/160/EEC) should be implemented as effectively as possible

3. Efforts should be made to support those Member States affected by the floods of 2002 so that

they may carry out the remedial measures to restore acceptable standards in their water quality

4. The Commission should ensure that Member States did not use bathing bans or de-identification

The Commission’s bathing water site has now been updated and provides the results from 1997-2002 for all 19,000 EU beaches. Diagrams provide a picture of the long-term quality trend of the bathing areas. Member States contribute to the report and web-site by specifying which actions have been taken in regard to urban wastewater treatment as well as mastering the effects of diffuse pollution. Most recent result are on: http://europa.eu.int/water/water-bathing/report.html

The European Economic and Social Committee OPINION on the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the quality of bathing water (COM(2002) 581 final - 2002/0254 COD) appears on: http://esc.eu.int

(Please refer to the October 2003 Brussels Brief for an up-date on progress on the proposed Bathing Water Directive)

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT - REPORT HIGHLIGHTS MEMBER STATE FAILURES IN IMPLEMENTATION

The Commission's 5 Years Report "On the Application and Effectiveness of the EIA Directive(Directive 85/337/EEC as amended by Directive 97/11/EC): How successful are the Member States in implementing the EIA Directive?" demonstrates that after fifteen years of application, the EIA Directive is not yet fully implemented in all Member States.

(1) all Member States have not yet transposed the amendment to the original EIA Directive although the deadline was more than four years ago.

(2) about 30% of open infringement cases concern gaps identified by the Commission in national laws intended to transpose the Directive.

Most infringement cases (around 65%), however, concern bad application of the Directive in relation to individual projects.

· lacking or insufficient determination of whether EIA is necessary ("screening"),

· not covering all project categories required, non-effective public consultation and

The Member State with the biggest number of infringement procedures open at present is Spain. The only Member State with no current open cases is Denmark.

European Environment Commissioner Margot Wallstroem emphasised that the Commission will continue to take all necessary legal action to ensure that the EIA Directive is correctly and fully implemented, including taking Member States to the European Court of Justice when needed. They also intend to prepare interpretative guidance for some problemc areas to help advise the Member States when they implement the Directive. They will increase capacity-building and training for the authorities responsible for dealing with individual EIAs and finally, further research will be needed - for example, to better understand how Member States decide which projects have to undergo an EIA and which do not.

An amendment to the EIA Directive is not currently on the agenda for several reasons. One is the recently adopted amendment that introduces additional obligations with regard to public participation and access to justice (in line with the Aarhus Convention; (Directive 2003/35/EC)) and which will have to be transposed by the Member States within two years from its entry into force. Another reason is the adoption of the SEA Directive on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment that will have to be transposed by Member States by 21 July 2004. It is likely that the strong link with the EIA Directive will strengthen the administrative capacities of the respective authorities in the Member States in their assessment procedures and will complement in many cases the application and better implementation of the EIA Directive. Implementation of the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Directive may also reveal additional difficulties in environmental assessment practices that need to be taken into account in a future amendment of the EIA Directive. An amendment of the EIA Directive may be necessary in due course to further help implementation.

The Commission is keen to improve implementation of the Directive and tackle implementation gaps. It will continuously monitor the Directive's enforcement and prepare guidance in consultation with Member States, the new Member States and stakeholders such as NGOs, local and regional authorities and industry. It will also carry out targeted research and encourage capacity building programmes. The full text of the report is to be found at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/eia/home.htm

ECCE NEWS 2003 ENVIRONMENT SUPPLEMENT TEXT: Diana E Maxwell PHOTOGRAPHS: Santiago Hernandez Comments and suggestions may be sent by e-mail to: eccesecretariat@hotmail.com Or by post to ECCE Secretariat, 3 Springfields, AMERSHAM Bucks HP6 5JU, U.K.