6 Community Eco-Management and Audit
Scheme
| (29870)
12108/08
+ ADDs 1-2
COM(08) 402
| Draft Regulation on the voluntary participation by organisations in a Community eco-management and audit scheme (EMAS)
|
| Legal base | Article 175(1)EC; co-decision; QMV
|
| Department | Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
|
| Basis of consideration | SEM of 1 May 2009
|
| Previous Committee Report | HC 16-xxx (2007-08), chapter 4 (8 October 2008)
|
| To be discussed in Council | May 2009
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared
|
Background
6.1 The Commission says that the Community has taken important
steps to achieve its objectives on growth and jobs, and to set
the right framework for business in Europe, but believes that
there is a pressing need now to integrate sustainability into
this wider picture. It has therefore put forward in July 2008
a Sustainable Consumption and Production and Sustainable Industry
Policy Action Plan[23]
in order to achieve this, accompanied by a further Communication[24]
on using public procurement to benefit the environment, and a
number of specific measures, including this draft Regulation on
the Eco Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS).
6.2 In our Report of 8 October 2008, we cleared
a number of these documents, including the Action plan, but left
uncleared the draft Regulation. In doing so, we noted that the
aim of the EMAS, as set out in Regulation (EC) No. 761/2001,[25]
was to promote improvements in the environmental performance of
organisations through the establishment of environmental management
systems enabling them to evaluate their performance, and to provide
information on that performance against the targets set. Since
the Scheme was last reviewed in 2001, the number of organisations
registered under it had declined across the Community,[26]
which the Commission said was partly attributable to competition
from other more market-facing industry standards.
6.3 It had therefore proposed a number of changes
to improve the working of the Scheme, make it more attractive
to business, and stimulate increased uptake, especially by small
organisations. These changes included extended reporting requirements,
introducing core environmental performance indicators (on energy
efficiency, material efficiency, water, waste, biodiversity and
emissions), extending eligibility to organisations outside the
Community, simplifying the EMAS logo, harmonising accreditation
rules, and requiring Member States to adopt strategies to increase
awareness of the Scheme. The Commission hoped that these would
lead to a significant increase in registrations.
6.4 In our Report, we noted that the UK was actively
engaged in the promotion of environmental management systems,
including EMAS, and welcomed this opportunity to revise the Regulation.
However, although it also welcomed certain aspects of the proposal,
it was concerned that it had neither simplified the Scheme, nor
made registration procedures easier, particularly for smaller
organisations (and indeed would increase administrative burdens
for both applicants and Member States). It also described as "challenging"
the target which the Commission had set for increased registrations,
particularly in relation to those outside the Community.
6.5 The Government also said that it intended
to let us have an Impact Assessment shortly, but that the effect
on business was likely to be small, given the voluntary nature
of the scheme, which provided individual companies the opportunity
to weigh any such costs against the benefits of participation.
Consequently, the main burden was likely to fall on Member State
authorities, insofar as they would need to carry out additional
pre-registration checks and provide advice to applicants.
Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum of 1 May
2009
6.6 We have now received from the Minister for
Sustainable Development and Energy Innovation at the Department
for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Hunt) a supplementary
Explanatory Memorandum of 1 May 2009, enclosing the promised Impact
Assessment. This says that environmental benefits arising from
participation in EMAS are expected to include more sustainable
use of resources, better public image, reduced risk of non-compliance
with environmental legislation, and improved relations with environmental
regulators, but that it had not been possible to quantify these:
however, since the Scheme is voluntary, it was reasonable to assume
that any such benefits would outweigh the costs to those businesses
which choose to participate. The Assessment adds that, to the
extent that the proposal would give rise to any increased costs,
these would be borne by Member States authorities, but that they
would be unlikely to exceed £50,000 a year for the UK.
Conclusion
6.7 We note that it is not possible to quantify
the overall costs and benefits of this proposal. However, since
the Eco Management and Audit Scheme is voluntary, it will be for
companies considering whether to participate to make this assessment
for themselves, and we see no need to seek further information.
Consequently, we are now content to clear the proposal.
23 (29874) 12026/08 Back
24
(29858) 12041/08 Back
25
OJ No. L 114, 24.4.01, p.1. Back
26
Including the UK, where there are only 71 registrations after
more than 10 years' operation. Back
|
