Memorandum to Czech Presidency and Ten Test - EEB

More documents

Recommendations

Info

EEB Memorandum to the Czech EU PresidencyThe Presidency should also work to improve the Commission’s proposal andhelp define the Ecolabel as a mark of environmental excellence addressing allenvironmental impacts (including hazardous chemicals content and end-of-life)without undermining its credibility.EEB calls upon the Presidency to ensure the following aspects are clarifiedor introduced into the Ecolabel Regulation:- The “ex ante” verification that products comply with the Ecolabel criteriabefore producers are granted the right to place the EU flower on theproducts should be clearly reintroduced.- Ecolabel criteria should cover the entire life-cycle of a product and not belimited to “the most” significant environmental impacts.- The Ecolabel’s contribution to the substitution of hazardous substancesshould be clearly enshrined in the regulation together with theprecautionary principle- The extension of its scope to food products should make it clear thatEcolabel can only apply to products already bearing an organic label toavoid misleading the consumer.- A work plan and clear deadlines for the comitology procedure should beintroduced in the text of the regulation. This will put the necessarypressure on the Commission to propose criteria after discussions of theEco-labelling board7.6. Framework Directive on Soil ProtectionIn December 2007, five Member States blocked the adoption of the Soil Directivein the Environment Council. Their main argument was that there was no need forsuch a Directive as soil protection could be best handled at the national level(subsidiarity). One of the five blocking countries was the French government,focusing on some specific concerns. During its Presidency the Frenchgovernment brought the issue back to the agenda, trying to accommodate inparticular the four other blocking states and its own industry.This led to an unacceptably weak proposal which was immediately rejected by allMember States and did not reach the level of Ministers.For EEB it is obvious and very much necessary that the EU adopts a SoilDirective, and urges the Czech Presidency to work from the proposals the formerPortuguese Presidency presented in December last year, which received supportfrom 22 Member States and is more likely to also get support from ParliamentandCommission.When the draft Soil Framework Directive was published in 2006, EEB welcomedit, although it expressed concern over the lack of enforceable targets and quality31
EEB Memorandum to the Czech EU Presidencystandards. Soil is a common and non-renewable resource for the EU. Along withwater, air and biodiversity, it is vital for the long-term sustainable production offood, feed, fibre and, increasingly, biomass for energy. Yet soil is being degradedat an alarming rate and lacks adequate protection at EU level and in mostMember States. The costs of inaction are massive and the consequences forEurope's food security are alarming. The EEA estimates that the cost of cleaningup just existing contaminated sites would cost between €59 and €109 billion, notincluding the cost of cleaning up the results of ongoing pollution. In addition,contamination is only one of several major threats to soil.Rejecting or weakening the Directive on the grounds that decontamination is tooexpensive would mean having to face an even higher bill in the future.EEB believes the case for EU action stems from the principle that the EU’senvironmental problems can only be tackled effectively through coordinatedEuropean action. The current absence of EU-wide legal protection for soil andthe natural functions it provides is a core weakness in Europe’s environmentalpolicy. Soil functions such as storing carbon and producing food and other rawmaterials are of vital Community importance and cannot be left to the discretionof Member States or regions alone. Therefore a strong Directive is necessary toset European environmental objectives, which leaves room for Member States todecide on the measures needed to achieve the objectives.It is imperative that debate on the Soil Framework Directive moves fromconsidering the need for a Directive to deciding what kind of Directive is needed.The Commission proposal did little more than oblige EU countries to develop acomprehensive soil policy and provides a few mandatory elements for thesenational policies, such as identifying risk areas and drafting a programme ofmeasures. It left setting targets and definition of risk areas entirely to theindividual Member States, set overly long-term deadlines and delegatedimportant decisions to comitology.The Portuguese proposal did not resolve these issues, but it was worth beingadopted, as it would lay the base for a flexible approach that in many countrieswould still make a difference.EEB therefore calls on the Presidency to start work on the Soil Directive onthe basis of the agreement of 22 Member States at the December 2007Environment Council and ensure a Common Position that will include:- A clear legal obligation to decontaminate polluted sites by applying the“polluter pays” principle, which will act as an incentive to industry to avoidpollution in future.- An effective and mandatory approach to addressing soil degradationprocesses caused by unsustainable land use practices.32
Page 2 and 3: EEB PUBLICATION NUMBER 2009/001THE
Page 4 and 5: EEB Memorandum to the Czech EU Pres
Page 48: EEB PUBLICATION NUMBER: 2009/001be

Memorandum to Czech Presidency and Ten Test - EEB

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?