ERA Forum
Ludwig Krämer
Environmental action programmes at EU level
Article 192(3) TFEU provides for the adoption of general EU environmental action programmes “setting out the priorities to be attained”. Such environmental action programmes (EAPs) were adopted at EU level since 1973.Footnote1 The environmental sector is thus the only sector of EU policy which worked throughout its existence—an environmental policy administration inside the EU Commission was established in 1973—with action programmes. The text of the present Article 192(3) TFEU was introduced into the EC Treaty in 1993; since then, the action programmes are adopted by decisions by the European Parliament and the Council.
Article 192(3) TFEU does not impose on the EU institutions the obligation to adopt general EAPs, but requires majority decisions, should such a programme be adopted. The following contribution will shortly retrace the activities under the 7th EAP which will expire at the end of 2020. It will then discuss, whether it is politically necessary or useful to have an 8th EAP at EU level adopted. This will be followed by suggestions, what the content of such a possible action programme could be.
As regards the implementation of the actions of the 7th EAP, the Commission was asked to carry out an evaluation of the 7th EAP and present a proposal for an 8th EAP “in a timely manner with a view to avoiding a gap between the 7th EAP and the 8th EAP”. This evaluation was made in mid-2019 ,Footnote4 and was in time for the possible preparation of an 8th EAP: the legislative procedure for adopting the 6th EAP took 18 months, for the 7th EAP 12 months.
Decision 1386/2013 fixed nine priority objectives and declared that the “relevant EU institutions and the Member States are responsible for taking appropriate action with a view to delivery of the priority objectives”.Footnote6 An Annex to Decision 1386/2013 established the details of the priority objectives. However, this Annex did not contain specific actions to be undertaken, but simply detailed the different priority objectives. To give a concrete example: Paragraph 28 of the Annex provided that “the 7th EAP shall ensure that by 2020… (I) the loss of biodiversity and the degradation of ecosystem services, including pollination, are halted, ecosystems and their services are maintained and at least 15% of degraded ecosystems have been restored… This requires in particular (i) stepping up the implementation of the EU Biodiversity Strategy without delay, in order to meet its targets”.
Despite all efforts made at EU level, it is not possible to discover in these wordings an “action” which is to be undertaken. Rather an objective was fixed and a very vaguely formulated result to be reached was indicated, though no concrete measures were announced, such as the actors or bodies to undertake the measures, the delay by which the measures were to be proposed or adopted, means, including financial means, which were to be made available, monitoring provisions, transparency, reporting etc.
As the whole Decision and its annex were structured in this way, I concluded in 2014, following a detailed examination, that the 7th EAP was an “action programme without actions”,Footnote7 and constituted rather a form of environmental declaration. This opinion was shared by the European Economic and Social CommitteeFootnote8 and the Committee of the Regions.Footnote9
The implementation of the 7th EAP
An assessment of the measures taken between 2014 and mid-2019 confirms this conclusion. The Juncker Commission which took office at the end of 2014, presented annual work programmes which appeared to be programmes in favour of “big business, free trade and economic interests rather than for European citizens and their environment”;Footnote10 the protection of the environment was not of significant concern to the Juncker Commission. Environmental legislative proposals in the Commission’ annual work programmes for the years 2015 to 2019 were extremely rare, except in the area of climate change which progressively became a priority activity of the Commission and the whole EU; this paucity of initiatives did apply to the waste sector as well, where the Juncker Commission jumped on the idea to promote a circular economy—though until now, not much progress was realized beyond the increase of recovery and recycling rates of some waste streams and some administrative measures, such as reporting and planning.
Obviously, in its evaluation of the 7th EAP, the Commission perceived the 7th EAP and its implementation differently. It argued that the 7th EAP contained 35 sub-objectives and 60 concrete actions.Footnote11 It avoided, though, to enumerate these actions in detail and indicate, for each of them, what actions had been undertaken and what results were reached. It published a list of the main outputs since the adoption of the 7th EAPFootnote12 which includes the elaboration of studies, guidance documents, reports, communications and even mentions “continuous cooperation” with stakeholders as an output. This list constitutes, in this author’s assessment, rather a list of the activities of—mainly—the Directorate General “Environment” of the Commission, but not an assessment of the EAP actions which had been taken and their results.
For the rest, the Commission evaluated the 7th EAP against its five criteria for “better regulation”, i.e. effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, coherence and added value and declared itself, overall, satisfied with the resultsFootnote13 which is not, what an “action” programm is for. It also gave a sort of progress report on the realization of the nine priority objectives,Footnote14 without, though, stating what measures were taken or not taken and what results were reached.Footnote15
For the first three of the 7th EAP’s priority objectives, the European Environment Agency (EEA) developed a number of indicators to monitor the implementation of the 7th EAP.Footnote16 The indicators were either taken from the 7th EAP itself or from other EU statements; a reference was given in each case.