SPEECH/

SPEECH/99/78

Mrs Ritt Bjerregaard

Member of the European Commission responsible for Environment

Towards a Sustainable Europe

European Environmental Bureau (EEB) 25^th Anniversary Conference

Bonn, 17 May 1999

Introduction:

Members of the EEB, Ladies and Gentlemen. It gives me great pleasure to be here today, at this conference which not only looks back to celebrate 25 years of the European Environmental Bureau (EEB), but also looks forward, asking how we can find the way to a sustainable Europe.

25 years ago the Commission was instrumental in setting up the European Environmental Bureau, and have over the years contributed to the funding. So, if we were married, we could celebrate silver anniversary. Marriages usually have their ups and downs especially if they last for 25 years. And that also very precisely describes the relationship between an NGO and politicians. We need each other but it is not always an easy life. If you were always happy with the decisions the Commission takes you would not be a real NGO. And if I always did what you wanted, I would not be a realistic politician.

Marriage also could be described as a sustainable relationship. If we look at the marriage wows that people take, they talk about staying together "in sickness and in health for better or for worse". This is the relationship we have with each other. This is also the relationship we need to have with this earth. And this is the focus of my speech: sustainability.

Sustainability will only be achieved if we succeed in truly integrating environmental concerns into policy making in other areas. In particular into the area of economic and social policy.

Thus integration and sustainability are two sides of the same coin.

Let us look at the history of integration and try to assess where we need to go from here. Sustainability can only be achieved if consumers and citizens really want it. And here the EEB and other NGO's have a key role to play in bringing citizens' concerns to the attention of policy makers. And we need to address the major challenges facing us if we are to deliver sustainable development: Making integration a reality; moving towards a recycling society; addressing international problems effectively; and maximising the environmental benefits of enlarging the EU.

As you can hear sustainability encompasses many aspects, and I will try to cover them all.

Integration:

Let me recall that integration is an idea we have been grappling with for a number of years. The pace of progress has increased recently, notably from the Luxembourg European Council in 1997 and through the Cardiff and Vienna Summits in 1998.

The Amsterdam Treaty entered into force May 1st. Sustainable development and integration of the environment into other policy areas are now explicit objectives of the EU. This is not a fancy idea. This is not an afterthought. This is a major priority for the European Union.

Integration is not just a theoretical concept. Integration must become part of everyday decision-making in a large number of policy sectors in the EU. Integration must be applied in practice. Without integration there can be no sustainability.

The Cardiff and Vienna Summits instructed a number of sectoral Councils to develop integration strategies, including indicators. But if I look at the results, if I look at what these individual Councils have achieved so far, I have to say I am disappointed.

These various Councils will have to explain what they have done - and especially not done - at the Helsinki Summit. There is still much work ahead, and Helsinki must provide the whip that is needed if we are to achieve real integration and sustainability.Let me mention just two examples.

Firstly, agriculture. I am pleased that the recent Agenda 2000 agreement established a linkage between direct support to producers and environmental protection. We spend 40 billion Euro each year in agricultural support. And we are finally moving away from the ridiculous situation where financially supported agriculture contributes to pollution and damage to bio-diversity which society must in turn pay to put right.

Secondly, climate change. The Kyoto Protocol is an important first step, but we need to put in place the measures needed to achieve our commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This is not going to be easy. I can only promise you one thing: "environmental" policies on their own will not allow us to meet our obligations under Kyoto. Policy action will have to address all sectors - energy, transport, agriculture and industry. We need to take a good hard at the way we consume energy and at the available sources. We need to reduce our carbon dependency. In order to do so we need to apply a wide range of instruments - voluntary agreements, standards, fiscal measures, including taxes and incentives, and research and development. The Commission will on Wednesday adopt a Communication that underlines this message. Climate change is on the agenda of the European Council at Cologne in the beginning of June and I expect support for a comprehensive strategy for an early ratification and implementation of the Kyoto Protocol.

The role of citizens and consumers:

Sustainable development is not a simple idea and it can be difficult to integrate into everyday life for all citizens.

But there are encouraging signs that citizens are becoming more aware of environmental problems. There are at least two lessons that we the policy makers - absolutely must learn:

The importance of a precautionary approach. All policy areas must recognise that it is much more expensive not to take sufficient early precautions.
We need to involve citizens in the decision-making process. The Amsterdam Treaty will require us to improve transparency and access to information. I strongly support the Aarhus Convention, which the Community has signed as well as the member states.

The Commission takes citizen's concerns very seriously. They appear often in areas where not enough is known and where the justification for a precautionary approach is crucial. Let me touch on three particular issues:

Genetically modified organisms (GMOs). In February 1998, the Commission proposed an amendment to Directive 90/220/EEC on the deliberate release GMOs into the environment. The Proposal is founded on a precautionary approach, and genuinely seeks to address citizens' concerns. Among the novelties are comprehensive risk assessment, improved monitoring, clear and unambiguous labelling of all GMOs placed on the market and a more democratic decision-making procedure. Let me add one groundbreaking element: All consents granted for releases of individual GMOs will have to be reviewed every 7 years, taking account of new information and scientific knowledge. I have to say that I simply cannot understand why the European Parliament wishes to dilute this crucial improvement in consumer safety by nearly doubling the period between reviews to 12 years.

Chemicals. I can not accept that we today have literally thousands of chemicals on the market, where no risk assessment was ever carried out. That is not sustainable neither for us, nor for our children. We are simply not doing good enough. the current legislation is not doing the job. The Commission undertook last year a review of industrial chemical legislation. A workshop we held in February brought together over 150 stakeholders. A number of key points were identified, including the importance of managing chemicals during their whole life-cycle and not merely at the production stage. Chemicals were also discussed at the informal environment council in Weimar a week ago, where the need for speedy action was underlined once again. I very much welcome the support of Member States for the Commissions efforts on this complex dossier. I am currently working on a Communication, setting out a strategy for future chemicals policy. It will be based firmly on the principles of precaution and openness. And it may include proposals for legislation as appropriate. We can not allow the uncertainty in the public mind about the effects of industrial chemicals on human health and the environment to remain unaddressed.

Endocrine Disrupters. Some of the same questions arise for endocrine disrupters. Public concern is growing over various substances suspected of interfering with the endocrine systems of both humans and wildlife. There is also concern that it may cause adverse health effects such as cancer, behavioural changes and reproductive abnormalities. We can not let such worries go un-noticed. The Commission is currently working on a Community Strategy on these 'Endocrine Disrupters' which will include an action plan to respond quickly and effectively to the problem.

Future challenges:

If citizens are becoming more aware of and concerned about threats to the environment, there is another important message we have yet to really get across.

And this is that sustainability requires changes to lifestyle, as well as new and improved technologies and stringent control. This means that everyone has a contribution to make - all of us here today; policy-makers and regulators; and most important of all, producers and consumers. Sustainability does not come by itself.

Don't ask what everybody else can do for the environment. Ask what you can do yourself.

We need to start considering how to create a resource-efficient society, by moving towards 'sustainable' products. We need a fully integrated approach that considers the full life cycle of each product. Improving waste minimisation and recycling will be a crucial part of this. It is important that NGO's play an active part in this process, and put forward their ideas and proposals. You have an important role. You need to bring the ideas to us, but also to bring about the needed change of life-style for all citizens.

But how do we achieve the life-style changes necessary for sustainability? The very banal, but no less true, answer is that integrating environmental considerations into other areas is the best way to achieve what we want. Indeed, it is the only way.

The Global Assessment that we are working on will be the key to taking these ideas forward. It will look not only at what we have achieved, but also at what our future priorities - and tactics - should be.

In this context we must recognise that changes in the structure of prices and incentives will be needed to create the conditions for more sustainable choices by business and citizens. Energy and resource consumption and pollution must become more expensive. The Finance ministers in the ECOFIN Council have a special responsibility in this respect. And I hope that they will not just tax and then not spend on the environment!

We must also improve our use of targets and indicators, which can play a powerful role in driving forward integration. We need to be clear about where we want to go, how to get there and how we measure progress along the way.

And we need to improve our internal communications. The new Commission and new Parliament will need to think hard and seriously about how best to organise and structure themselves to achieve integration and sustainable development. I will do my best to contribute. And I expect the new members of Parliament will do the same.

The Amsterdam Treaty requires integration of all Community policies, both internal and external. In the end, we need to build not just a sustainable Europe, but a sustainable world. Integration needs to be a global concept.

The WTO Ministerial Conference in Seattle at the end of the year will be crucial in this respect. It will set the agenda for the Millennium round of WTO negotiations - and we need to put up a good fight on an number of important issues:

An agenda for sustainable development agenda which integrates trade, environment and development.

The resolution of some issues that have been unsuccessfully discussed since the WTO was established in 1994 - in particular the relationship between trade measures and eco-labelling schemes; Multilateral Environmental Agreements; and the precautionary principle.
Improved transparency in the WTO and a better response to the concerns of society at large - including better co-operation and dialogue with non-governmental actors.
Free trade is the solution of the past. Green trade is the solution of the future.

Finally, let us not forget that the title of this conference is 'Finding the Way to a Sustainable Europe'. And Europe is much bigger than the EU. Agenda 2000 and the recent Communication on Accession Strategies for Environment set out the general framework and key political principles for the Community's approach to the environmental dimension of enlargement.

The Commission has completed the so called 'screening' of the environment chapter of the acquis with the six first-wave countries, and has just started the screening with the five second-wave countries.

Frankly, the progress in terms of approximation to the environmental acquis is not very encouraging. All the countries still have a lot to do and will need to redouble their efforts to comply with the acquis. It seems unlikely to me that the first-wave countries will have completed transposition or have in place the necessary administrative machinery for implementation before their own target dates for accession.

The most challenging sectors are those which require 'heavy' investments for full implementation, such as water, air and waste. Additionally, nature protection is a big challenge, as it requires a lot of scientific and administrative work. We need to help the candidate countries:

Protect their environment and heritage - these will contribute to their success, eg. by enhancing tourism;
Achieve sustainable growth;
Develop quickly sound strategies for implementing the environment acquis.

The EU does not wish only to pass judgement on the candidate countries. We have to work with them constructively and see where we can help them within the limits of our means. And where we can help them to help themselves. We therefor need a careful environmental strategy for the enlargement process and for the negotiations. The Commission will soon have to give its opinion on the negotiation positions presented by the candidate countries and propose a way forward to the Council. Our strategy should maximise improvements in environmental protection and nuclear safety as a result of the EU enlargement process. It must secure the central role of environment in the negotiation process. And it will require tight, realistic and legally binding conditions and timetables for full implementation of the environmental acquis to be included into the accession treaties.

Two solutions seem equally unacceptable: That enlargement is postponed because of the environment. Or that enlargement does not take environmental concerns fully into account. Neither solution will be sustainable. Not in the short run and not in the long run. Not for the candidate countries and not for the EU.

Conclusion:

Let me conclude by saying that although much remains to be done, I am not too downhearted. In the 25 years since the EEB came into existence, we have made huge strides forward. But we need to do more. In 25 years we might celebrate our golden anniversary. But even if I want to be re-appointed commissioner, I don't think I will be around for that celebration. During the next 25 years it is very important that we do not divorce. We - the Commission and EEB - must not divorce. And the people and the environment must not divorce. We need to stay married not just to each other, but also to the idea of sustainability.

Thank you for your attention