8. We consider that the
following raises matters of political importance, but make no
recommendation for its further consideration:-
DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT
(17825)
12457/96
COM(96)561
| Communication from the Commission on environmental agreements.
|
Background
8.1 The Communication
from the Commission follows up proposals outlined in the review
of the Fifth Action programme Towards Sustainability[16].
It set out the Commission's view on the use of environmental
agreements with businesses to implement Community legislation.
The Commission Communication
8.2 The summary of the
document says that:
"... agreements
with industry represent a versatile instrument which can be at
regional, national, Community and international level. So far
they have been non-binding and voluntary. Recently, however,
some Member States have opted for a more formal binding approach".
It highlights the advantages
of environmental agreements as encouraging a proactive attitude
on the part of industry, a cost-effective tailor-made solution
and quicker and smoother path for achievement of objectives.
8.3 Having emphasised
the importance of flexibility, the Communication then suggests
a somewhat heavy-handed approach, which would lead to more onerous
arrangements, including prior consultation of the interested parties
(presumably those in addition to the businesses directly concerned),
a binding form of agreement (which is quantified with staged objectives),
monitoring of results and publication of the agreement and the
results obtained. The Commission's argument in favour of this
heavier approach is that it would avoid "possible distortion
of competition caused by free-riders". According to the
Explanatory Memorandum of 4 February from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary
of State at the Department of the Environment (Mr Clappison),
the Commission's proposals would define three types of agreement:
"voluntary
agreements between Government and businesses, which have no
legal status;
implementation agreements,
when a Member State enters into a legally forceable agreement
with business to implement the obligations from a European Directive;
and
environmental agreements
at EU level between
the Commission and groups of businesses".
8.4 The implications
for subsidiarity are not clear. Allowing Member States to implement
certain provisions of Directives by agreement with businesses
would give national Governments flexibility, but the Commission
proposes that decisions on when implementation agreements would
be an option should be taken at Community level.
The Government view
8.5 The Government supports
the use of environmental agreements on the grounds that they can
secure a positive commitment to environmental goals and provide
a cost-effective means of achieving them. However, it says that
the framework proposed by the Commission could lead to inflexibility,
and is not convinced that a contractual approach would in fact
eliminate the problem of "free-riders". The Parliamentary
Under-Secretary says:
"The Government
is concerned that the contractual approach the Commission proposes
through implementation agreements may not be appropriate or effective
in all circumstances. The proposals should not exclude other
types of binding agreement. Environmental agreements cannot work
unless they are an attractive option for business, and there is
a danger that a rigid contractual approach would not be seen to
have any advantage over regulation. Member States need to have
the flexibility to determine the format of the agreement so that
it will deliver the objectives in a way that is most appropriate
for national circumstances and the subject matter of the agreement."
Conclusion
8.6 This would seem
to be an example of the Commission's wish to carry forward measures
to "reduce the volume of regulatory and administrative actions"
being likely to have the opposite effect. There is little point
in claiming a reduction in legislation if, in effect, legislative
controls are introduced by another route. We accept that agreements
which simply allow "business as usual" would not meet
public expectations on environmental concerns, but it is unlikely
that business will be enthusiastic about entering into agreements
if all "stakeholders" participate in target setting,
and sanctions such as fines or other penalties are introduced
to make the agreements more binding. We agree with the Government
that the problems of "free-riders" (businesses which
might profit from standing aside from agreements) is a real one.
However, it is doubtful that making environmental agreements
more formal and enforceable by sanctions will help the problem;
it could exacerbate it.
8.7 The Communication
sets out guidelines for environmental agreements in areas where
Directives lay down the results to be achieved, but leave national
authorities the choice of method of implementation. We recognise
the need for any environmental agreements to comply with Community
law on competition and other aspects of the EC Treaty, but we
share the Government's concern that an inflexible system should
not be imposed; that Member States should be allowed to develop
the system that best suits their own circumstances, and that conformity
for the sake of it should be avoided. The Commission intends
to clarify the scope for the use of environmental agreements by
listing eligible provision for relevant Directives. We do not
recommend debate, but we would like to be kept informed of developments,
and we would of course expect to see any subsequent formal proposals.
We are clearing the document now before us.
16 (17059) 5641/96; see HC 36-i (1996-97), paragraph 14 (30 October 1996). Back
|
