6 Thematic strategy on the sustainable
use of natural resources
| (27141)
5032/06
COM(05) 670
+ ADDs 1-2
| Commission Communication: Thematic Strategy on the sustainable use of natural resources
Annexes to the Thematic strategy on the sustainable use of natural resources
|
| Legal base | — |
| Department | Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
|
| Basis of consideration | SEM of 14 March 2006 and Minister's letter of 12 December 2006
|
| Previous Committee Report | HC 34-xviii (2005-06), para 3 (8 February 2006)
|
| Discussed in Council | 31 October 2006
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared
|
Background
6.1 The importance of the sustainable use of natural resources
in both economic and environmental terms has long been recognised,
and this is one of the areas in which the Community's Sixth Environmental
Action Programme called for a Thematic Strategy. Also, our predecessors
reported to the House in November 2003 on an earlier Commission
Communication[15] preparing
the ground for such a strategy.
6.2 This was followed in December 2005 by the current document,
in which the Commission highlighted Europe's dependence on natural
resources, and the rate at which renewable resources are being
exploited, not just within Europe, but globally. It suggested
that the challenge was to facilitate and stimulate growth, whilst
at the same time preserving the environment. In particular, it
noted that, although there had been improvements in areas such
as air and water quality and the increased recycling of waste,
current policies had not been sufficient to reverse fundamentally
unsustainable trends, and that there was a need to move beyond
issues such as emissions and waste control, and to identify the
negative environmental impacts of resource use throughout overall
life cycles.
6.3 The Commission went on to suggest that this must involve improved
knowledge and understanding of resource use and its environmental
impact; the development of tools to monitor and report progress;
fostering the application of strategic approaches both in economic
sectors and in Member States; and raising awareness of the environmental
impacts of resource use. It also saw this as a long-term process
with a 25 year time horizon, and as requiring actions to be taken
at different levels, including nationally and globally.
6.4 When we considered this document on 8 February 2006, we noted
that it was broadly in line with UK policies on sustainable production
and consumption and natural resource protection, but that the
Government was preparing a Regulatory Impact Assessment, which
would be submitted by the end of March. We therefore decided to
draw the proposed Strategy to the attention of the House, but
to reserve judgement until we had seen the promised Assessment.
Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum of 14 March 2006
6.5 We duly received that Assessment under cover of a supplementary
Explanatory Memorandum of 14 March 2006. This suggested that the
Strategy as proposed would not give rise to any significant additional
regulatory or administrative burden for the UK, but its main purpose
was to seek views on how the UK should respond. More specifically,
it asked whether the UK should (a) take no action, (b) support
the actions set out, (c) support the setting of concrete targets
and timelines for resources use, and (d) whether there was any
evidence to support this last course. In view of this, we decided
not to report back to the House immediately, but to see what response
the Assessment elicited.
Minister's letter of 12 December 2006
6.6 We have now received a letter of 12 December 2006 from the
Minister for Climate Change and Environment at the Department
of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Ian Pearson) summarising
the outcome of the earlier consultation. He says that this gave
rise to 16 responses, all of which believed that the UK should
engage actively with the Strategy and its recommendations, with
a majority also supporting the actions in it. In addition, a majority
of respondents supported the establishment of concrete targets
and timelines, though it was stressed that a strong knowledge
base would be a prerequisite. The Minister also says that the
Strategy was adopted by the Environment Council on 30 October.
Conclusion
6.7 We have noted both the Regulatory Impact Assessment circulated
by the Government in the spring, and the responses to it. In particular,
the Assessment stresses that the Strategy as it stands would not
give rise to any significant additional regulatory or administrative
burden for the UK, and it suggests that there are a number of
reasons why it would not be appropriate at this stage to set resource-specific
targets. Consequently, although the Strategy is useful in so far
as it sets a long-term goal of decoupling environmental impacts
from economic growth, and outlines a number of steps which could
be taken to bring this about, we do not think there is any need
for it to be considered further by the House. We are therefore
clearing it.
15 (24933) 13239/03; see HC 63-xxxvi (2002-03), para
10 (5 November 2003). Back
|
