CARING FOR OUR FUTURE - European...

25 ISSUESAT A GLANCE

CARING FOR OUR FUTURECARING FOR OUR FUTURE

ACTION FOR EUROPE´SENVIRONMENTEUROPEAN COMMISSION

CAR

ING FOR OUR

FUTURE

ACTIO

N F

OR

EU

RO

PE’S

EN

VIR

ON

MEN

T

1999

EN

14C

R-21-99-836-EN-C

Price (excluding VAT) in Luxembourg: EUR 10

OFFICE FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATIONSOF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

L-2985 Luxembourg9 789282 875858

ISBN 92-828-7585-7

3rd edition 2000

Population and land use 19Population and land use 19The Earth in the future 9The Earth in the future 9

Industrial activity 25Industrial activity 25

Transport 29Transport 29

Energy 33Energy 33

Agriculture and forestry 39Agriculture and forestry 39

Fishing and aquaculture 43Fishing and aquaculture 43

The consumer society 51The consumer society 51

Tourism and leisure 53Tourism and leisure 53

Climate change 59Climate change 59

Ozone layer 63Ozone layer 63

Acidification 67Acidification 67

Air quality 71Air quality 71

Municipal waste 77Municipal waste 77

Hazardous and industrial waste 81Hazardous and industrial waste 81

Towns 85Towns 85

Fresh water 91Fresh water 91

Marine and coastal waters 95Marine and coastal waters 95

Environmental risks 99Environmental risks 99

Soil 103Soil 103

Nature and wildlife 109Nature and wildlife 109

Biodiversity 113Biodiversity 113

Chemical and genetically modified organisms 119Chemical and genetically modified organisms 119

Health 123Health 123

Natural resources 129Natural resources 129

Chronology 135Chronology 135

Glossary 137Glossary 137

Main references 141Main references 141

CARING FOR OUR FUTURE

ACTIONFOR EUROPE’SENVIRONMENT

25 ISSUES AT A GLANCEBrussels - Luxembourg - 1999

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

3rd edition


ACTION FOR EUROPE’S ENVIRONMENT

Published byOffice for Official Publicationsof the European Communities

Luxembourg, 1999

EEditorrEuropean CommissionDirectorate-General XI

Environment, Nuclear Safetyand Civil Protection

With the support ofEuropean Environment Agen-

cy, Copenhagen

LLayouttPaquet & Cléda

TranslationCT Belgium s.a.

Editorial workNewcom s.a.

Additional information on the environment is available

on the Internet.It can be accessed through

the Europa server : http://eu-ropa.eu.int/en/comm/dg11/dg1

1home.html. and

http://www.eea.eu.int/

Office for Official Publicationsof the European Communities,

Luxembourg, 1999ISBN 92-828-7585-7

©European Communities, 1999Cat. n° CR-21-99-836-EN-C

Reproduction is authorisedprovided the source

is acknowledged.

Printed in Spain

Printed on recycled paper

3

nvironment is a major concern for Europeans. And it is easy to understand why. The environment is the airwe breathe, the water we drink, the food we eat, our forests, etc… The state of the environment determinesour quality of life both for us and for our children. And in turn we affect it by the way we Europeans live, pro-duce and consume.

What can we do to improve and preserve our environment? First of all we can try to understand the chal-lenges our modern society has in managing the environment. Despite the diversity and increasing technicalcomplexity of the problems involved, environment is not a subject for “specialists” only. Then we can focuson clear and concrete objectives. Finally we can choose to achieve those objectives using different approach-es and putting all our energy into it. In matters of environment, Europe leads the world !

For almost the past thirty years environmental policy has been a priority for the European Union. It has now beenbrought to the fore by the Treaty of Amsterdam which has turned it into a key political objective of the Union. In closepartnership with the Member States, its regions and its cities, the European Union has become responsible for the fol-lowing tasks: to ensure a high level of well being for everyone; to restore the quality of the environment where it hasdeteriorated and in the future to act with a view to maintaining the essential balance necessary for our quality of life andsustainable development for future generations.

These steps require a multi-sectoral approach integrating the scientific, economic and political aspects of our policy. Itrelies on a long term strategy and on the day to day behavior of citizens and business. It also comprises an informationstrategy that guarantees access to the type of information that helps us to act effectively and gives our citizens the chanceto inform the public authorities in return.

The complexity of this whole policy led the Commission to publish the first edition of this book in 1997.The purposewas to explain to our citizens the various issues at stake, the advances that have been made and also to explain the jour-ney that still lies ahead for the achievement of this common European ambition. The publication has been a great suc-cess, so we have published it again with updates. Appearing on the eve of the Year 2000, these pages are a real testa-ment to the efforts made over the past quarter century. They describe the difficulties that have been encountered andthose that are still to be overcome.

It is my wish that by reading these pages each and every one of you will be better able to understand our environment,take it to heart and be inspired to become a real partner, join us in this effort on which the quality of our life and that ofour children depends .

Margot Wallström European Commissioner responsible for the Environment, Nuclear Safety and Civil Protection.

The Environment? Our Environment

E

PREFACE

4

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Table of contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

User’s guide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

The Earth in the future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Population and land use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Industrial activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Agriculture and forestry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Fishing and aquaculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

The consumer society . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Tourism and leisure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Climate change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Ozone layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Acidification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Air quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

TABLE OF CONTENTS

5

Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

Hazardous and radioactive waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

Towns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

Freshwater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

Marine and coastal waters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

Environmental risks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

Soil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

Nature and wildlife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

Biodiversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

Chemicals and genetically modified organisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

Natural resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

Chronology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135

Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137

Main references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141

TABLE OF CONTENTS

6

STRUCTUREThe work comprises foursections:

1. The central document

2. Glossary

3. Bibliography

4. Timeline

1. The central document

Comprises 25 factsheets ,each dealing with a particu-lar environmental topic.

Each issue is depicted in anicon. The l i s t of env iron-mental issues and their cor-responding icons is repea-ted in the index and in thetable of contents. They arealso listed on the bookmarkattached to this work.

For each issue tackled, thiscentral document providesinformation on:

• facts and trends;• European Union actions;

and• the responsibilities of the

various players involved.

The various issues treatedhere interact in a number ofways, and the appropriateicons are displayed to allowcross-referencing betweenfactsheets.

2. Glossary

The glossary provides expla-nations of the various envi-

ronmenta l concep t s r e -ferred to in this work, aswell as basic definitions incurrent use.

3. Bibliography

This refers to the principalsources that were used asreference materia l by theeditorial team preparing thisreport.

Please consult the bibliogra-phy for other bibliographicalsources for further reading.

4. Timeline

It is of benefit to every userof this work to be able to vi-sualise how environmentalissues, and their manage-ment, have developed overt ime . The t ime l i ne i l l u s -trates this in the light of cer-tain events, polit ical deci-s i on s and the measu re simplemented.

The key dates given on thistimeline identify four majortypes of events and actions:

• world events;• the evolution of the Euro-

pean Union;• ecological disasters; and• Europe’s environmental

action.

Here, too, the use of iconsallows the reader to referquickly to those issue-basedfactsheets, which are partic-ularly closely linked to theseevents.

5. Using the work

There are three ways of ac-ces s ing i n format ion on aparticular issue:

• through the central docu-ment, with its issue-basedfactsheets;

• through the timeline; or

• through the glossary.

The reader chooses directaccess to the factsheetsthrough the central docu-ment

The reader chooses t hefactsheet deal ing with theissue in which he or she ismost interested. The readerthen has access to a body ofinformation on the chosentop ic . More in -depth re -search may be carried outby referring to other issuesvia the icons.

The reader chooses to re-fer to the timeline

The reader consults the im-portant key dates relating tothe topic in which he or sheis interested. Icons are thenused to refer the reader tothe issue-based factsheets inthe central document.

The reader chooses an en-try on the topic in whichhe/she is interested

From here, the reader se-l e c t s t he words and keyconcepts relating to the top-ic in which he or she is in-terested.

Using icons, these conceptsthen refer the reader to theissue-based factsheets in thecentral document.

his work provides information on a central docu-ment comprising 25 factsheets relating to differentenvironmental issues.

This work can therefore be consulted according toyour information needs. The division between onetype of information and another is marked using asystem of icons (logos).T

USER’S GUIDE

7

THE EARTH IN THE FUTURE

POPULATION AND LAND USE

9

The single most important shiftthat has occurred over the past20 years is the fact that environ-mental protection has now be-come an inseparable part ofeconomic development. Slowlybut surely, European and evenglobal environmental pro-grammes are giving our smallblue planet a new chance. Pro-tecting the environment cer-tainly requires our politicalleaders to take action, but theeveryday choices of each andevery one of us can be no lessimportant. We will begin with areview of the current state ofthe environment.

For the generation ato comea

1970s - environmentalism comes of age

Environmental awareness hasgrown steadily since the 1970s.The primary goals at first weresimply to contain environmen-tal problems, reduce healthrisks, regulate planning and de-velopment and protect threat-ened species and habitats, all inthe short term. The main fea-

ture of the first generation ofpolicies (1970-85) was theirhighly sectoral approach to-wards the environment and theactions to be taken (air, water,waste and so on tended to beviewed in isolation). The spot-light fell mainly on the battleagainst pollution and resourcesremained relatively limited.

1980s -thinking globally

A substantial shift has occurredsince the late 1980s. Early envi-ronmental action turned out tohave little visible effect anddamage continued to be inflict-ed in a number of areas. What’smore, in addition to local prob-lems, evidence emerged of en-vironmental damage on a globalscale, such as climate changeand the depletion of the ozonelayer. Some products were

he problems caused by global economic developmenthave grown increasingly acute over the past 20 years.Although a lot of progress has been made in certainareas, the environmental warning-lights continue toflash. Europe has a special part to play in the ecolo-gical context, given its status as a highly industrialisedand developed region, and the European Union takesits responsibilities very seriously. EU environmentalpolicy has already achieved some beneficial results,but a lot more development is still needed in thisfield.T

The earth is a fragile inheritance. (Sunset on European coast)


10

found to pollute geographicalareas far away from where theywere emitted. Not even thepolar ice caps have beenspared. Finally, long-term, cu-mulative effects have been dis-covered that could pose a sig-nif icant threat to futuregenerations.

Economic challenge

Having once been seen as con-trary to business interests, envi-ronmentalism has steadily be-come an important element ofthe industrial system, with agrowing influence on technolo-gy and products. The environ-ment has become an increa-singly significant factor shapingcorporate strategy. What’smore, environmental technolo-gies and products have them-selves become a growth sectorthat is spearheading innovationand creating employment.

The idea of sustainable developmentBrundtland Report

UNCED, the United NationsCommission on the Environ-ment and Development, clearlyestablished in 1987 that the en-vironment was deterioratingsteadily and that this was direct-ly linked to regional and globaleconomic development. Thecommission published its find-ings as the ‘Brundtland Report’,which also warned that someforms of environmental damage(climate change and hazardouswastes, for instance) were be-ing passed on systematically tofuture generations. The reportshowed the world that environ-mental problems cannot beseparated from issues of humanwelfare and general economicdevelopment.

Alternative development

The Brundtland Report arguedin favour of alternative forms of

development that could ensureeconomic growth in both theshort and long term while si-multaneously improving the en-vironment and preserving natu-ral resources. Development ofthis kind has been christened‘sustainability’ — the only wayto avert economic or ecologicalcatastrophe in the medium tolong run. Sustainable develop-ment must be capable of ‘meet-ing current needs without com-promising the ability of futuregenerations to meet theirs’.The notion of sustainabilitymarks a turning point in eco-nomic and environmental poli-cy-making and has been widelyaccepted and approved.

Prevention and restoration

The fact that sustainable devel-opment is believed to be com-patible with economic growthhas undoubtedly contributed tothis acceptance. Stronger thanthat, a growing economy is ac-tually seen as a necessary pre-condition for sustainability, inthat it creates the resourcesneeded for ecological develop-ment, the restoration of earlierenvironmental damage and theprevention of future harm.

Changing models of growth

We are faced with the challengeof modifying our familiar mod-els of economic growth. Everycitizen has to understand thatthe quality and preservation ofthe natural environment and itsresources are vital to continuedsocial and economic develop-ment. As part of this process,we have to stop seeing eco-nomic growth as an end in itselfbut as a factor that can help im-prove the quality of our livingenvironment.

Rio Conference

Integration

The UN Conference on Envi-ronment and Developmentheld in Rio in June 1992 focused

on the need to incorporate theidea of sustainable develop-ment into environmental andeconomic policy-making. Theinternational community gath-ered at Rio accepted (albeit in avery general way) the aim ofsustainable development forthe whole world.

Agenda 21

The concrete results of the RioConference were as follows.The Rio Declaration on Envi-ronment and Development.The aim here is to work to-wards sustainable develop-ment, to eliminate non-viablemodes of production and con-sumption and to establish aglobal partnership in this field.

The Climate Change Conven-tion sets the objective of stabil-ising greenhouse gas concentra-tions at a level that does notthreaten the world’s climate.This is to be done by setting upnational and regional pro-grammes and strategies. Theconvention also sets the targetof stabilising emissions of CO2

(the most significant green-house gas) by the year 2000.

The Biodiversity Conventionaims to safeguard the variety ofspecies and ecosystems.

The Forest Declaration ac-knowledges the vital roleforests play in nurturing ecosys-tems, water resources, climateand biological diversity. It or-ganises the introduction of pro-tective measures and calls onnations, consumers and pro-ducers of tropical hardwoodsto use forests in the most sus-tainable way possible.

Agenda 21, finally, is a generalplan integrating all the actionsto be taken by the internationalcommunity in all fields relatingto sustainable developmentthrough to the 21st century.

Commitment

Signatories to the Rio agree-ments have agreed to draw up


11

plans for implementing the var-ious conventions and declara-tions. The first draft of Agenda21 runs to 800 pages and 40chapters, which set out a plane-tary protection programmecosting $ 600 billion for 180 in-dividual states at differentstages of ecological develop-ment and awareness. It will be achallenge, to say the least.

Rio + 5, Rio + 0?

In June 1997, the 160 Rio signa-tories met for a second EarthSummit in New York. Althoughsome encouraging results hadbeen obtained since Rio, the fi-nal conference document ex-pressed profound concern atthe accelerating deteriorationof the environment and partici-pants had to acknowledge thatthe overall outlook had grownmore sombre.Far from diminishing, for in-stance, greenhouse gas emis-sions have continued to grow.The battle against desertifica-tion, the need to protect biodi-versity and several other urgentconcerns were reaffirmed, butno extra funds were pledged.The systematic application of

Agenda 21 remains vitally im-portant, but has yet to begin ona significant scale. For its part,the European Union has pro-posed that all industrialisedcountries reduce their CO2

emissions to 85 % of 1990 lev-els by 2010. We can only hopethat Japan and the United Stateswill come on board by 1999when the next internationalconference on climate is sched-uled.

Globalisation and Environment

Globalisation

The emergence of a truly globaleconomy brought about by thedismantling of trade barriersand growing investment flowshas introduced a new dynamicinto the search for sustainabledevelopment. While globalisa-tion offers opportunities for theenvironment, it can also aggra-vate environmental problems:

On the one hand, the processof globalisation offers consider-

able potential for achieving in-creased efficiency in the worldeconomy and for improving en-vironmental efficiency. It canalso encourage the develop-ment and wider use of new en-vironmentally sound technolo-gies.

On the other hand, the in-creased scale of economic ac-tivity expected to result fromglobalisation is likely to lead tochanges in environmental quali-ty and add to pressure on theenvironment. Globalisation hashad a negative impact on theenvironment in several ways:transport, national resourceoveruse, and increased con-sumption.

At the same time the informa-tion society and the globalisa-tion of consumption trend hasmeant that unsustainable pat-terns of consumption that be-fore were limited to industri-alised countries in the Northare now spreading to huge pop-ulations in the South. The envi-ronmental consequences of thechanges in consumption pat-terns in developing countriescould be significant.

Summary of programme in certain target sectors

INDUSTRY

ENERGY

TRANSPORT

AGRICULTURE

TOURISM

SECTORAL IMPACT

Integrated tackling ofpollution

Reducing pollution

More environment-friendly vehicles and

fuels

Ecologically sustainablefarming

Sustainable tourism - Town and country

planning - Infrastructure

RESOURCES

Reduction and enhanced management

of waste

Development of renewable resources

Rationalisation of infrastructure

Development of forests

Protection of coastalzones and natural assets

ACTIONS

Eco-labelling of products

Reducing energy consumption

Improved car management

Rural development

Increased choice andbetter seasonal

distribution.


12

THE EARTH IN THE FUTUREEurope and the

Global Environment

Global issues have increasinglydriven European environmentalpolicy. Some of the most press-ing environmental issues todayare global in their character,such as climate change, ozonedepletion and bio-diversity, re-quiring coordinated global ac-tion for effective solution. Oth-er environmental problemsmay be more regional in theirnature, but require solutionsaround the world if they are tobe effectively addressed. Thereis also a growing recognition ofthe need to protect effectivelywhat has commonly beentermed the ‘Global Commons’such as the oceans.

An indicator of the importanceof international processes forthe European Union is the factthat during 1997 approximately35 % of environmental legisla-tion passed concerned interna-tional commitments.

European environment policyhas been increasingly focussingon global dimensions (climatechange, bio-diversity). An in-creased coherence has beenachieved between environmentand development policy but thisintegration still needs to go fur-ther. Trade and economic poli-cy, agriculture and fisheries arealso main areas that need moreglobal vision. The MillenniumRound of trade negotiations willbe an important opportunity,for pursuing this aim.

Trade and Environment – Ensu-ring that trade and financial flowssupport sustainable development

The need to make internationaltrade and environmental protec-tion mutually supportive infavour of sustainable develop-ment was one of the main mes-sages from Rio. After Rio, thetrade and environment debatewas translated into the WorldTrade Organisation arena follow-ing the creation of the WTO’sCommittee on Trade and Envi-ronment (CTE) in April 1994.The Community has been activein this debate and has been guid-ed by the principles defined inthe Commission Communica-tion of February 1996. In thisCommunication, the Commis-sion stressed that there was noinherent contradiction betweentrade liberalisation and environ-mental protection.

Globalisation makes it impera-tive to take into account envi-ronmental protection andsustainable development con-siderations in international eco-nomic negotiations and to de-velop a more harmoniousrelationship between trade andenvironment policies at interna-tional level. This is fully in linewith the provisions on integra-tion in the Amsterdam Treaty.At the same time, recent expe-riences, particularly the failureof the Multilateral Agreementon Investment negotiations,show that it will be difficult toachieve broad social support forfurther trade and investment

liberalisation commitments ifenvironment and sustainabledevelopment objectives are notduly taken into account.

At the 2nd WTO MinisterialConference in Geneva in May1998 it was agreed to launchcomprehensive multilateraltrade negotiations in the year2000. The degree of integrationof environment concerns intothe WTO system is not ade-quate. However, the forthcom-ing Round presents a ‘windowof opportunity ’ to make themulti lateral trading systemmore responsive to environ-ment and sustainable develop-ment concerns. In this process anumber of horizontal issues willneed to be clarified: the use oftrade measures in internationalenvironmental agreements,eco-labelling and the relation-ship between trade rules andcore environmental principlessuch as the precautionary prin-ciple. It will also be necessary toaddress the environmental im-plications of both existing andfuture WTO agreements, in-cluding the potential for win-win situations, (e.g. through theremoval of environmentallyharmful subsidies).

The links trade - development - environment

Developing countries have spe-cific concerns in the trade andenvironment debate. Trade andforeign direct investment (FDI)constitute the all over-shadow-ing bulk of financial transfers todeveloping countries. WhileOverseas Development Aid(ODA) has decreased in realterms through the 1990’s, pri-vate financial flows have in-creased five-fold, and now rep-resent on average almost 80%of net resource flows to devel-oping countries.

Environmental education is also tokeep in touch with the earth.(Nature initiation class – Parc Nationaldes Ecrins, Alpes du Dauphiné inFrance)

13

THE EARTH IN THE FUTUREWhile trade liberalisation posessome significant challenges todeveloping countries, the re-moval of trade restrictions anddistortions can also help pro-mote their integration into theworld’s economy and con-tribute to poverty eradication.At the same time, developingcountries tend to regard withapprehension the reinforce-ment of environmental stan-dards in industrialised countriesand fear that this process mightresult in the establishment ofnew trade barriers. In this con-text, it is essential to considerinter-linkages between tradeand environment and trade anddevelopment issues with a viewto shaping a consistent sustain-able trade agenda for the newround. The involvement of de-velopment policy makers andpractitioners in the trade andenvironment debate is crucialto reassuring developing coun-tries that their fears are under-stood. The link between tradeenvironment and developmentmust be addressed.

The trade-environment-devel-opment link will be consideredin the Sustainability Assessmentof the new Round which the

European Commission willshortly undertake.

The European Union’s Fifth Environment

ProgrammeEuropean environmental actiontakes the form of five-year ac-tion programmes.

The first four European envi-ronment programmes (1973-1992) led to the introduction ofover 200 legislative measures.The Fifth Programme, adoptedtowards the end of 1992,marked a fundamental new ap-proach.

From the Maastricht Treaty…

The Maastricht Treaty, signed inFebruary 1992, gave the envi-ronment a more prominentplace in the policies of the Eu-ropean Community and itsMember States. The treaty setsout to:• Promote sustainable and en-

vironmentally friendly devel-opment;

• Establish a high level of envi-ronmental protection;

• Integrate environmental needsin policy-making and imple-mentation in other sectors.

From now on, therefore, sus-tainable development will beone of the main objectives ofthe European project.

... to the Fifth Environment Programme.

The European Community ’sFifth Environment Programme’Towards Sustainability’ coversthe period 1993-2000. It setsout an overall strategy leadingprogressively towards sustain-able development and definesfive sectors in which the envi-ronment ought to have moreinfluence on policy and wheresignificant action is required.

Fields, objectives and targets

For each sector (industry, ener-gy, transport, agriculture andtourism) there are establishedobjectives, targets and timeta-bles.

NB : + target will probably be met+/- uncertain

- unlikely

(1) Including the former East Germany, (2) In 1986, (3) By 1995, (4) By 1999, (5) By 2005

Advances in environmental protection as measured by progress towardsachieving Fifth Programme targets (index 1985 =100)

1985 1990 Target for Likelihoodyear 2000 of meeting target

GLOBAL SCALECO2 emissions 100 (1) 102 102 +/-CFC production 100 (2) 64 0 (3) +

EUROPEAN SCALESO2 emissions 100 (1) 88 65 +NOx emissions 100 (1) 107 70 -VOC emissions 100 101 70 (4) -

REGIONAL SCALEPer capita urban waste 100 115 100 -Noise > 65 dB 100 >100 100 +/-Pesticides in groundwater 100 >100 0 (5) -Nitrates in groundwater 100 >100 0 -

Source : European Environment Agency.

14

Shared responsibility

This strategy also addresses theresponsibility of the key players(government, companies, localcommunities and the public)because progress can only bemade if everyone recognisesthe importance of the work tobe done and their own part in it.

A challenge for Europe

Urgent changes

Future generations have just asmuch right to clean air, purewater and green forests as wedo, but that right is currentlyunder severe threat. We haveall become aware of the dangerposed to the environment bythe uncontrolled exploitation ofthe earth’s natural resources.The greenhouse effect, the de-pletion of the earth’s protectiveozone layer and the systematicdestruction of tropical rain-forests are only three examplesof how the limits of sustainabili-ty have been breached. Aftertwo decades of what was es-sentially corrective action (andnot always successful at that),the Community now prefers toemphasise partnership and

shared responsibility when itcomes to preventing and, ifpossible, reversing environ-mental damage.

Europe’s response

The European Union hasadopted over 200 directivessince 1970 with the aim of im-proving air and water quality,controll ing waste disposal,monitoring industrial risks andprotecting nature. Key aims ofthis legislation have been to re-strict sulphur emissions (theprimary cause of acid rain), banthe use of products that harmthe ozone layer, control trans-port, eliminate hazardouswaste and establish safety stan-dards for bathing waters at allEU beaches. This approach cul-minated in the adoption of theFifth Programme shortly afterthe Rio Conference.

In addition to traditional legisla-tive actions, the EuropeanUnion wishes to use a broadspectrum of tools in order toachieve a sustainable society:

• Economic instruments, to en-courage good products andprocesses.

• Financial instruments, ofwhich LIFE is the only one di-rectly dedicated to the envi-ronment.

Since its inception in 1992, ithas co-financed over one thou-sand demonstration projectsfor industry and local authori-ties and nature protection ac-tions. The Commission alsoworks closely together with theMember States to add an envi-ronmental dimension to theCommunity Funds.• Support measures (informa-

tion, education, research).

Interim review

Mixed results

The Commission drew up aninterim review of its progress in1996. Progress has been made

in integration of environmentalconsiderations into other policyareas. Progress is most ad-vanced in the manufacturingsector where legislation has ex-isted for twenty years andwhere the economic advan-tages were quickly seen, and itis least apparent in agricultureand in tourism. In the field oftransport, awareness of theproblems is increasing,progress is being made on vehi-cle emissions, fuel quality andtechnology, but the overallgrowth in the number of vehi-cles negates progress. In the en-ergy sector, although the envi-ronment is seen as part of theproblem and of the solution,there is a lack of internalisationof environmental costs into theprice of energy.

In a number of sectors, the evo-lution of the quality of the envi-ronment is emphasised in thereport of the European Envi-ronment Agency: on chloroflu-orocarbons (CFCs), halons, ni-trogen oxides (NOx), volatileorganic compounds (VOCs)and heavy metals.

In some other sectors, possibleimprovements are awaited bythe year 2000:• Sulphur dioxide emissions

(SO2);• Production of ozone-deple-

ting substances;• Heavy metal discharges into

the North Sea via the atmo-sphere and continental wa-ters;

• Carbon dioxide (CO2) emis-sions. Despite considerableuncertainty, reductions by theyear 2000 may be seen as afirst step towards future re-ductions.

Could do better

The EU is on the right path insome areas but it is still far fromsure of meeting its objectives inthe following sectors:• Acidification. The widespread

breaching of critical limits willcontinue;

• Volatile organic compounds(VOCs). There has been a

The landscape, an act of man and nature.(Spring in French speaking Brabant, Belgium)


15

clear reduction in VOC emis-sions, but the slow imple-mentation of directivesmakes it unlikely that targetswill be met by the year 2000;

• Nitrates. Drinking waterstandards will be breachedless frequently thanks to sub-stantial reductions in the useof nitrogen in farming, but thepersistence of nitrates ingroundwater is such that thetargets will not be met with-out denitrification;

• Waste management. Wastegeneration continues to growsteadily, despite waste pre-vention policies. Future gainsfrom recycling will be under-mined by the expense of theprocedures and the lack ofmarkets for recycled materi-als;

• The urban environment.Pressures in this area, espe-cially those linked to traffic,will continue to worsen inmost cities;

• Conserving and protectingbiodiversity. The pressure ex-erted by transport andtourism continues to intensi-fy, even though a growingnumber of areas are protect-ed and agricultural problemsare diminishing in response tochanges in the CAP (Com-mon Agricultural Policy) andecological farming measures.

Future Environmental Policies

The Amsterdam Treaty, cominginto force in 1999, puts an em-phasis on sustainable develop-ment. The new article 6 re-quires that environmentalconcerns be integrated into allother policy areas. Upon specif-ic request from the Heads ofGovernment and State sectoralCouncils of Ministers havedrawn up strategies on how thiscan be achieved.

A global assessment of the FifthEnvironment Action pro-

gramme, undertaken by theCommission in 1999, reviewsthe implementation of the pro-gramme from 1992 to 1999 andpresents options for environ-mental and sustainable devel-opment policy for the nextdecade.

Formulating what policiesshould follow the Fifth ActionProgramme, special considera-tion must be given to:• The actual state of environ-

ment and expected trends(including effects of policymeasures which yet have nottaken effect)

• The requirements of the Am-sterdam Treaty

• The entry into the EU ofCentral and Eastern Euro-pean Countries

• How the EU Member Stateswill live up to the Kyoto Pro-tocol requirements

• How international tradewill promote sustainabledevelopment


16

��@@@@@@@@@@��ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ

��

yyyyyyyyyy

��

yyyyyyyyyy

Citizens are environmental players, too.here are several things we can do to safeguard the future of hu-manity and that of the earth by acting locally. We can join an envi-ronmental organisation, carefully consider the daily choices wemake as consumers (‘green consumption’) and get involved as citi-zens and voters in regional development projects.Sustainable development isn’t just an abstract notion to be left toour political leaders. In reality, the environment can only be pro-tected by actions that are often simple but highly effective whenrepeated by thousands if not millions of consumers. To help youtake concrete action, we have created a room-by-room tour of the

average house, focusing on the relevant themes in each one. Although wecan’t offer a comprehensive guide to ecologically sound living, once youstart thinking about these things, you’ll soon find you’re able to come upwith appropriate ecological behaviour for a wide range of family or work-ing situations.We admit, however, that although greener living can sometimes save usmoney (lower fuel bills, for instance) it can also require substantial in-vestment (installing a rainwater tank, choosing more expensive ‘green’products, etc.). Protecting the environment and our health comes with aprice tag that none us can afford to dodge.

TWHAT CAN YOU DO?

THE CITIZEN’S ROLE


17

Living roomYou may be reading

this in your arm-chair in the livingroom, wondering

how to translatethe rather abstract no-

tion of sustainable developmentinto everyday terms. We mightas well begin with the light youneed to read these pages. Thefirst thing we do when the sungoes down is to turn on a light.We have as much domestic en-ergy as we want nowadays andit is only on the rare occasion ofa power cut that we suddenlyrealise how dependent we havebecome on electricity.To reduce consumption, youcould switch to fluorescent orother energy-saving bulbs,which use only a quarter of theenergy to generate the sameamount of light and last up toten times longer. Apart fromthe direct economic benefit,switching bulbs in this way alsohelps protect the environment.The power we consume is rela-tively cheap because the pricewe pay does not reflect the trueenvironmental costs of generat-ing electricity (consumption ofnon-renewable fossil fuels, dis-posing of nuclear waste, etc.).Domestic energy consumptionis growing steadily as newlabour-saving appliances contin-ue to make our lives easier.You can, however, stabilise andeven reduce your electricityconsumption via a few simpleactions. Adjust lighting to youractual needs (e.g. by installingneon tubes in the garage andkitchen), choose applianceswith lower energy consump-tion, turn out the lights whenyou leave a room and use directrather than indirect lighting.You can also keep an eye on off-peak consumption — energymay cost less at night, but itsenvironmental impact is just thesame.

aKitchenaThe kitchen has got

to be one of themost frequentlyvisited and live-

liest rooms in anyhouse. It’s here, of

course, that meals are preparedand often eaten. The kitchen isvery much a strategic room — aplace of communication anddiscussion and a food store. It isalso here that we keep ourmain domestic appliances(fridge, dishwasher, mixer, cof-fee-maker, kettle, microwave,etc.) and wash and dry our dish-es. Every one of these activitieshas environmental implicationsin terms of energy conserva-tion, saving water and ecologi-cally aware consumption.The kitchen is also the placewhere waste management be-gins. In an attempt to tackle thegrowing volume of domesticwaste, many local communitiesorganise the selective collectionof paper, cardboard, glass, met-als and minor chemical waste.Some encourage the compost-ing of organic waste, as home-made compost improves soilquality while reducing the vol-ume of domestic refuse byaround 40%.In many cases, therefore, peo-ple’s kitchens have becomemini-sorting centres. We shouldclearly understand, however,that sorting and recycling wasteis a responsibility taken on inperpetuity. One effect of man-aging your own householdwaste is to make you realisethat the best kind of waste isthe kind you don’t produce inthe first place. Watch out forexcessive packaging at the timeof purchase, give preference todurable and non-polluting pro-ducts and buy correct amountsto avoid waste. In short, we allneed to apply the principle ofprevention.

BathroomHave you ever

wondered, duringyour morning orevening ablutions,

how much wateryou consume every

day in keeping yourself clean?Washing your hands uses any-where between 2 and 18 litres,brushing your teeth 0.2 to 5litres and taking a bath 150 to200 litres. Not to mentionthose seemingly insignificant lit-tle leaks. A dripping tap canwaste 35 cubic metres of watera year and a toilet with an in-correctly adjusted flush as muchas 220 cubic metres! Careless-ness like this can cost a lot whenyour water’s metered, to saynothing of the environmentalimpact. What’s more, the waterin question is usually drinkingwater. We’re used to having un-limited amounts of good-qualitywater on tap at a ridiculouslylow price, blinding us to the factthat drinking water is a preciousand rare resource that needs tobe conserved.Away from the bathroom, wecan always use alternative wa-ter supplies like rainwater for avariety of purposes — cleaningthe house, watering the plantsor filling the washing machineor toilet. Another habit to beavoided is disinfecting toiletswith bleach. It isn’t effectiveand is very harmful to healthand the environment, as bleachcontains chlorine which reactswith organic compounds in wa-ter to form dangerous and per-sistent organochlorines (muta-gens, carcinogens, etc.) whichcan then build up in the foodchain.

BedroomThe bedroom is a

very importantpart of the homein which we spend

many hours everyday. It is a room that

deserves a lot of attention, fromnoise levels to lighting, heating

��@@@@@@@@@@��ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ

��

yyyyyyyy


18

and furnishings and, most im-portant of all, air quality. Bed-rooms should be well ventilatedand should not have fitted car-pets, as these can cause aller-gies. Certain materials used inconstruction, decoration andfurniture can also emit sub-stances that are harmful tohealth and the environmentover a prolonged period. It’s al-ways best to use natural materi-als like stone, wood, cork, natu-ral plaster and cotton and tochoose paints and other pro-ducts that are water rather thansolvent-based. You can usedried flowers, spices and fruitto perfume rooms andwardrobes, rather than spray-ing chemical air-fresheners. Asfor cleaning, finally, the best so-lution is light and regular wash-ing with an environmentallyfriendly detergent.

aGarageaGarages are oftenworkshops inwhich cars cohab-it with bikes and

scooters, gardeningtools, lawn-mowers,

tool-boxes and workbenches.Many of them have shelvesfilled with products of varyingage, from bottles of distilledwater to paints, pesticides andhighly-toxic solvents. Youshould always follow the sto-rage instructions for these prod-ucts, make sure that the label isproperly legible and that theuse-by date hasn’t lapsed. Theyshould be kept away from heatand damp, and most importantof all, out of reach of children. Ifyou need to get rid of any ofthese products, you should ne-ver just throw them into thedustbin or pour them down thedrain or onto the ground, asthey are far too harmful to theenvironment and human health(they can give off toxic gases,for instance). Contact your lo-cal waste-collection service tofind out what you should dowith household chemical waste.

Talking about garages naturallybrings us to the car. Car-useshould be taken into accountwhen choosing somewhere tolive. The ideal home has a gar-den, even a small one, and agarage for your bikes, andshould be close to work, publictransport connections andshopping facilities. You can thenuse your car in combinationwith public transport, walkingand cycling, something whichchildren particularly enjoy. Theenvironmental impact of cars isfocused on elsewhere in thisbook. Suffice it to say that ourcities are literally suffocating un-der the effects of car use, yetthis is only one aspect of theoverall problem.

aGardenaThe garden is a

place of relaxationfor the whole fam-ily. Many gardens

are far from per-fect, acting as home to

weeds and slugs which try tobeat us to the lettuce. The idealgarden for a lot of people wouldbe totally free of weeds, pestsand disease and should haveplenty of flowers. Modern gar-deners can achieve this idealwithout many hours of work byturning to a whole arsenal ofchemical products, from artifi-cial fertilisers to pesticides,none of which are entirely freeof health and environmentalside-effects. We can, however,enjoy productive and healthygardens without resorting tochemical products. If we makeour own compost we can fer-tilise our soil cheaply and effec-tively, while substantially reduc-ing the volume of ourhousehold refuse. We can haveour soil analysed to seewhether we need to increasethe amount of nutrients. Wecan also use living organisms ortheir products to deal with anypests that take a fancy to ourplants. Ladybirds, for instance,are great greenfly predators. Ju-

dicious combination and rota-tion of plant species, finally, canalso significantly improve thequality of our gardens.

Changing the worldWe live in a society that pushesus to consume more and moreall the time. Manufacturers andservice-providers are constant-ly encouraging us to buy. Atti-tudes towards cars reveal a lotabout a society. For the averagecitizen, the car is a symbol ofsocial success. The newer,more attractive, comfortableand powerful the car, the higherits owner has climbed the socialladder. At least that’s whatmany consumers believe. Thenumber of cars per householdis another supposed indicator ofsocial success. Meanwhile, carsare becoming increasingly recy-clable, fitted with catalytic con-verters and thrifty in fuel con-sumption, all of which eases theconsumer’s conscience andpushes public and alternativeforms of transport into thebackground. Immense financialinterests are at stake, not tomention jobs — directly in thecase of car design, construction,distribution and maintenanceand indirectly for the road,healthcare and insurance indus-tries. As time goes by, however,we are having to pay a mount-ing environmental cost as theair becomes unbreathable inour cities. And the lives of manycitizens have been left miser-able and dangerous by the car.How, for instance, can we in-crease road safety around ourschools when it has become thenorm to drive our kids directlyto the school gate? In many ar-eas, no-one in their right mindwould let their children cycle toschool any more. The environ-mental revolution we need canonly happen if there is a realchange in mentality. Only thenwill the idea of sustainability betruly enshrined in our dailylives. We mustn’t leave it toolate to act.


19


Austria, Finland and Swedenrecently joined the EuropeanUnion, which had hithertobeen one of the most denselypopulated areas in the worldwith 147 inhabitants per km2.The addition of the immenseScandinavian territories (27%of the EU’s surface area withonly 6 % of its total population)reduced this figure to 114 in-habitants per km2. The distri-bution of the EU’s populationis, however, extremely un-equal. The density in Finland isa mere 15 inhabitants/km2, ris-ing to 331 in Belgium and 372 inthe Netherlands. Some 20% ofEurope’s 370 million citizenslive within 4% of its territory,primari ly in the highly ur-banised industrial areas andalong the coasts. This has in-evitably created a concentratedrelease of pollutants into theenvironment and has led to thedevelopment of all related in-frastructures and networks insociety: transport, telecommu-nications, electricity etc.

One important response tothese problems lies in the ap-proach we take to planning andhow we use the land. We cansee this in the Netherlands forexample which has the densestpopulation in Europe whilst en-

joying vast areas of green beltand open spaces.

Well-informed and moreaware, Europe’s citizens, asconsumers, can make more re-sponsible and better-informedchoices which can reduce thepressure on our environment.

ProfileHigher standards of living arethe fundamental cause for thegrowth of material consump-tion in Europe which has grownspectacularly in the last 40years. A second factor has beenthe overall growth of popula-tion in that period, some 17 %since 1964 despite a levelling offof the birth rate in recent years.The average European also liveslonger (to an average age of 72for men and 79 for women). Asthe number of pensioners hasrapidly increased so has the de-sire to travel. Retired peoplehave plenty of free time and inmany cases are better off finan-cially than their juniors. Thismakes them important con-sumers of leisure services andholidays. The sharp increase inEuropean consumption ofgoods and services can also be

attributed to other factors, in-cluding shrinking averagehouseholds (more people livingalone).

Struggling to keep upEurope actually stands out fromthe rest of the world for its lackof demographic dynamism. In1993, net population growth inthe EU ranged from 5 for every1,000 inhabitants in Ireland to -1.2 in Germany. The recent col-lapse in the birth rate in Spain,Greece, the Netherlands andIreland will further acceleratethe relative ageing of the popu-lation in those regions.

2 out of 3 citizens aretown-dwellers

Recent decades have seen theclosure of many farms and theloss of 2 million jobs in rural ar-eas. This has significantly al-tered the pattern of populationdistribution. The amount ofland under cultivation has de-clined steadily in Europe sincethe beginning of the 1960s.Conversely, reforestation andnatural tree growth led to a10 % increase in forested areaover the same period. Virginland or properties abandonedby bankrupt farmers and ruralworkers drawn to the city haveoften been bought up and usedto build new homes and busi-nesses, infrastructure or recre-ational facilities.The growing imbalance be-tween town and countrysidehas led to increased consump-tion of energy and transport. Ithas been calculated that thecombined effect of urbanisationand mobility in Europe’s mostdensely populated countriescauses built-up areas to in-crease by 2% every 10 years. Ithas also been estimated that theroad network already con-sumes 1.3% of the EuropeanUnion’s total land area com-pared to a mere 0.03% in thecase of rail.

he link between population, environment andeconomic development is very complex. If wecould clearly identify the different factors,then we might understand how to prevent theproblems that ensue from this relationship.One thing is certainly obvious: concentrationsof population, misuse of national resources,poverty and lack of any control cause environ-mental degradation. However, a better levelof education, healthcare and nutrition as wellas scientific and technological progress woulddefinitely make a solid contribution to thebetter use of natural resources. Recent deve-lopments in three areas (control of birth rate,life expectancy and standards of living) in se-veral regions of the world are important indicesof their future demographic trends. How doesEurope compare?T

Facts and Trends

The pressure of humanity

20

Europe’s industrial landscape haschanged a great deal over thepast 20 years. Heavy industry hasdeclined (a process that begansomewhat later in the East) andthe service and high technologysectors have increased in growthtremendously. These changes,together with measures taken inthe field of energy efficiency havehelped the EU make importantprogress over the past 20 yearsin terms of the efficiency of ener-gy consumption.

Everything we produce and con-sume has an impact on the envi-ronment. Above all, it is the waygoods are produced that decides

Europe in action

New approaches Source : Eurostat

The urban settlement constantly increases at the expense of the ruralsettlement(Housing in the Isle of Dogs, London,United Kingdom.)


21

how big this impact will be. Theexplosive increase in oil prices inthe early 1970s, growing envi-ronmental awareness and the in-troduction of the first environ-mental regulations forcedEurope to restructure economi-cally. Technological advanceshave also occurred in the threemain fields of energy-saving, ma-terial substitution and pollutioncontrol. This is clearly apparentwhen we review the pattern ofindustry’s energy and raw mate-rial consumption in recentdecades (the rate of energy usemeasured in terms of gross do-mestic consumption per unit ofGDP has been reducedby 25%). A similar pic-ture appears throughthe explosion of newbusinesses working inthe field of environ-mental protection.What’s more, thebreakthrough of infor-mation society tech-nologies could ensurebetter management ofnatural resources andmore effective pollu-tion control in the fu-ture.

No doubt that by theend of the 1990s, allthe most effectivesteps in this field will al-ready have been taken.In other words, if theEuropean economyand population contin-ue to grow at the pre-sent rate, the mea-sures we will have tointroduce in the futureto maintain or reducecurrent emission rateswill be increasinglycomplex and onerous.For that reason it is im-portant we act quickly.

Managing our land more effectively

The EU has redoubledits efforts to support

effective and more integratedtown and regional planning po-licy. It is well known that simplyproviding structural funds is nolonger enough, nor completelyefficient, especially as the re-sults of such investments can beenvironmentally damaging. Thecurrent priority is to sketch theoutlines of Europe’s future ex-pansion, part of which entailsimplementing the Europe2000+ report (1994) which laidthe foundations for cooperation

in the field of European land de-velopment. The report placesparticular stress on the need toprotect the environment, safe-guard biodiversity and managenatural resources prudently. Italso emphasises the need forcross-border, inter-regional andtransnational cooperation with-in the EU itself and with neigh-bouring countries if we are toachieve our shared objective ofpromoting sustainable develop-ment.

A drop in the birth-rate shows up as a reduction at the base of the pyramid. At the sametime, however, the apex is rising because people are living longer. What we see here istwo processes acting at the same time.

Demographic pyramid in the EU : comparison between 1960/1993 (% of world population).

Source : Eurostat


22

The impact of development

The quality of the environmentand the growing concentrationof population are a clear chal-lenge for our societies. Simplydefining these two factors moreeffectively would go a long waytowards a cleaver picture of amore symbiotic relationship be-tween our civilisation and nature.

Town and country planning isfrequently used as an instru-ment for protecting the envi-ronment. Plans can be drawnup at national or regional level,but the system generally ope-rates at local level. Some statesuse sector plans incorporatingspecific ecological objectives,

such as programmes for resto-ring environmental damage ineastern Germany, land-useplans for coastal zones in Portu-gal, regional plans for dischargepoints in the Netherlands andplans for integrated transportmanagement in Austria. Thepublic is increasingly involved inthe drafting of these plans - afactor that has been the norm inrecent years for Northern Eu-rope and which is now alsospreading to the countries ofthe South, as demonstrated byPortugal’s recent national envi-ronment plan.

Physical planning has to be seenas one aspect of an overall stra-tegy of environmental policy.Denmark, France, Ireland, Nor-way, the Netherlands and theUK have all risen to the chal-

lenge, drafting Green Plans forthe year 2000. The basic idea ineach case is to address environ-mental problems at theirsource, taking them directlyinto account when formulatingnational policy and the codes ofconduct to be pursued by thevarious sectors of business.

Quality of life, an objective to reach inthe cities as well.(The Grand’Place in Bruges, Belgium)

Soaringgrowth rates

The impact of demographicand economic growth on thewell-being of our planet hasbeen measured in the follo-wing terms:• Tripling of the population

over the last 100 years anda doubling in the last 40;

• 20-fold increase in eco-nomic activity;

• 50-fold increase in theconsumption of fossil fuels;

• 50-fold increase in indus-trial output.

PRIORITY OBJECTIVES • Introduce measures to improve energy efficiency.• Enhance processes and technology.• Improve pollution control.• Reduce emissions and discharges.• Introduce environmental management tools (LCA).

Taking responsibility


23

INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITY

TRANSPORT

ENERGY

25

APortraitAThe EU’s annual industrial out-put is worth around ECU 2,600billion, putting it alongside theUnited States and Japan as oneof the world’s leading industrialpowers. European manufactur-ing is currently growing at a rateof 2% a year, compared to a1993 forecast of 2.6% annualgrowth until the year 2000.Some 80% of the industrial sec-tor is made up of small andmedium-sized firms and it is di-rectly responsible for around25% of Europe’s wealth.

Environment alertBy definition, all industrial activ-ity uses up natural resources

energy, generates waste and re-leases pollution. If the environ-ment is not to be damaged irre-versibly, it is crucial that wecontinue to reduce this damageat a rapid pace. Current levelsare downright alarming (seetable). What’s more, our rawmaterials are running out.

Production up, pollu-tion down

Recent technological advances,the decline of heavy industryand the growth of the servicesector have helped reduce con-sumption per unit produced ofenergy and raw materials signif-icantly. In many cases, however,these advances have been ac-

companied by increased pro-duction. In the chemical indus-try, for instance, unit energyconsumption fell 30% between1980 and 1989, but productionrose 50% over the same period.

Cleaner technologyPrior to the 1980s, virtually noaccount was taken of environ-mental concerns when it cameto shaping industrial processes.Stricter environmental legisla-tion and demand on the part ofconsumers for greener pro-ducts are, however, obliging in-dustrial companies to takemore and more notice of theenvironment in their businessplans. This is best illustrated bythe development of ‘clean tech-nology ’ and eco-efficiencythroughout industry. The pur-pose of such technology is toprevent pollution rather thancuring it. It means that fewerraw materials are used to man-ufacture the same finishedproduct and that less pollutionis generated in the process.

ndustry is an immense source of wealth and comfortfor modern society, but it is also responsible for muchpollution that threatens our health and environment.There is an urgent need nowadays to add an ecologicaldimension to economic development and to reconcilecompetition with respect for the environment. Al-though this is an immense challenge, it is one that canand must be met.I

Facts and Trends

Greening industry

Industry’s contribution to the main environmental issues (1995, list not exhaustive)

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE INDUSTRY’S SHARE

• Climate change • 27 % of CO2 emissions 24 % of N2O emissions

• Destruction of the ozone layer • 80 % of CFC emissions

• Acidification of the environment • 29 % of SO2 emissions, 13 % of NOX emissions

• Air pollution • 30 % of VOC emissions

• Waste materials • 29 % of waste production

• Water resources • 53 % of water consumption7 % of phosphorous discharges

10 % of nitrogen discharges

• Urban environment • 10 % of noise emissions

INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITY

26

ObjectivesEurope’s strategic goal is forecological concerns to besteadily integrated in industrialpolicy. Recently, the EuropeanCommission published a Com-munication on the competitive-ness of European enterprisesfacing globalisation in which itargued that the capacity of Eu-ropean enterprises to anticipatethe use of ambitious environ-mental standards is an advan-tage on world markets. Theconcepts of eco-efficiency andeco-innovation help companiesto both reduce their costs andprotect the environment.

MeasuresA collection of measures andsupport instruments have beenadopted in this regard. Whilstfiscal and financial incentiveslike eco-taxes are consideredimportant they have proven dif-ficult in practice (for examplethe CO2/energy tax project —see ‘Climate’). Therefore, anumber of important new re-quirements have also been in-troduced on a purely legislativelevel, including:• Regulations for chemical

products which set outpackaging, labelling, transportand marketing standards forall hazardous substances.

• A directive on major acci-dent risks associated withcertain industrial activities(‘Seveso’ Directive).

• A system for assessing theenvironmental impact ofcertain public or private pro-

jects. Permission to go aheadwith these projects is nowbased on a compulsory envi-ronmental impact assess-ment. The latter is availableto the public who can submitopinions, which must be tak-en into account by the regu-

lating authority when decid-ing whether or not to grantpermission for the project.

• Rules to reward environmen-tally friendly products by al-lowing them to display an eco-label as a major element of anintegrated product policy.

• An eco-management andaudit Scheme to encouragefirms to evaluate and steadilyimprove their environmentalperformance, in return foruse of the ‘EMAS’ symbol andan enhanced image in the re-lationship with the public andtheir stakeholders (‘EMAS’regulation).

It was once widely believed that economic developmentwas incompatible with ecological concerns. Nowadays, ithas become clear that we both can and must create andrecreate industries that are compatible with the protec-tion of the environment. European policy sets out to en-courage ecologically friendly production, stressing that ‘asfar as the environment is concerned, industry is not onlypart of the problem, it is also one of the keys to its solu-tion’.

Europe in action

Industry, essential and sometimesaggressive.(Polyurethane industry, Germany)

INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITY

Environment and competitiveness

27

• A directive on packagingsetting out recycling stan-dards for waste packaging.

• A directive on integratedpollution prevention andcontrol, which introduces anew approach to emissionprevention through the con-trol of pollution from air, wa-ter and soil in large industrialand agricultural installations.The Directive replaces theold ‘end-of-pipe’ solution thattried to control final dis-charges with an approachwhich uses technology tominimise emissions at everystage of the industrial pro-cess. (‘IPPC’ Directive).

aResultsaDespite some pollution preven-tion and the conservation ofnatural resources (especiallywater) have yet to be adequate-ly integrated in either industrialpolicy or practice. Importantprogress has been achievedwhere the following conditionsapply:• The source of the pollution is

well defined;• Anti-pollution techniques are

available at the beginning ofthe chain;

• The measures in question onlyentail a low level of costs (im-

proving energy efficiency, forinstance, or reducing waste).

Progress in other fields, howev-er, has been very modest orinadequate:• Controlling emissions;

• Developing clean technology;• Reducing packaging waste;• Integrated pollution preven-

tion.

The growing cost of caring for

the environmentIt has been calculated that bythe year 2000, industry willhave taken most of the mea-sures that require only a rela-tively modest investment. Con-sequently, as economic anddemographic growth conti-nues, the measures needed tokeep emissions at or below cur-rent levels will become increas-ingly complex and onerous.

• New economic instruments that encourage in-dustry to add an environmental dimension to theirproduction and management policies.

• Development of less polluting processes andproducts.

• The availability of relatively inexpensive technicalsolutions for reducing certain types of pollution;

• Improved management and control of productionprocesses.

• The closure of heavy industries and the develop-ment of the service sector (which is less voraciousin its consumption of raw materials and energy).

• Growing interest of banks and insurers in cleanerindustries.

• Growth in production and consumption.• Increasing demand for energy (despite improved

energy efficiency in some industrial processes).• The low price of certain products (especially fos-

sil fuels), which discourages real savings.• The cost of introducing clean technology.• Development of an integrated product policy.

DevelopmentsThe Good... ...the Bad

Water is generally necessary to indus-try, for better or worse.(Petrol industry – The Port ofAntwerp, Belgium)

INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITY

28

Member state levelMember States can, with EUsupport, promote ‘eco-indus-tries’ and encourage traditionalindustry to make a ‘greenbreakthrough’. This entails thefollowing measures (somecountries have, of course, al-ready begun to act in this field):• Improving the spread of clean

technology and promotingecological best practice espe-cially eco-efficiency and eco-innovation;

• Stressing the benefits of apositive attitude towards en-vironmental problems;

• Launching support pro-grammes for SMEs to en-courage them to switch toless polluting technologies bymeans of practical and finan-cial assistance;

• Providing information andraising awareness to encour-age changes in consumer be-haviour.

As far as preventing industrialpollution is concerned, the di-rective on environmental im-pact assessments has provedvery effective and is now begin-ning to bear fruit.

Big business quicker to respond

Industrial companies wishing toreduce their environmental

costs and improve their brandimage have been steadily incor-porating environmental con-cerns in their business plans.For many of them, a more envi-ronmentally friendly approachhas become an important mar-keting tool. Industries increas-ingly publish environmental re-ports. These need to beimproved, however, in order toplay a role similar to that of the‘normal’ annual report. Somehave signed ‘sustainable deve-lopment charters’, while othershave opted for voluntary codesdrawn up by Europe, such asthe eco-label and eco-audit(EMAS) schemes. Others stillhave signed voluntary agree-ments with their respectivegovernments, committingthemselves to go further thanexisting standards require.Many industries have alsoturned towards the concept ofeco-efficiency and the opportu-nity offered by technology toreduce inputs and power con-sumption in the productionprocess. This has a dual effect,lower costs and better compe-titiveness for industry and lesswaste and lower emissions forour environment.

What about SMEs?It is at the level of small andmedium-sized enterprises thatprogress towards greater envi-

ronmental protection has beenweakest, in spite of the fact thatboth the EU and individualMember States provide experttechnical and financial assis-tance to support SMEs in theirenvironmental efforts. Becauseof their size, companies in thiscategory ought to be flexibleand adaptable, giving them apotential advantage in certainnew and existing markets (envi-ronmental services, product re-cycling, etc.). Their develop-ment is often held back,however, by restrictive admin-istrative, financial or legal re-quirements.

The citizen’s roleEurope’s citizens can play animportant part in persuading in-dustry to take fuller account ofthe environment. They can sup-port cleaner companies by pre-ferring environmentally-soundproducts (phosphate-freewashing powder, CFC-freeaerosols, recycled paper,reusable products, etc.). Citi-zens can also urge industrialfirms to take part in the Euro-pean eco-management and au-dit Scheme (EMAS) or to signan environmental charter.

Environmental impact assess-ments, meanwhile, offer localresidents greater involvementin the authorising or rejection ofcertain categories of public orprivate project.


Source : ERM.

HISTORICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT TRENDS.

INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITY

29

There has been an explosion infreight and passenger traffic inrecent decades as the economyhas grown and people have be-come increasingly mobile(work and leisure travel). Thenumber of passenger kilome-ters travelled rose by 121% be-tween 1970 and 1996.

To meet this demand, govern-ments have increased the num-ber of building works for net-work infrastructures. Theyhave stepped up their road-construction programmes (tomeet demand for the mostpopular form of transport) andhave built numerous airportsand high-speed rail links.

These measures have had to betaken, however, against a back-ground of intense competition,which has tended to outweighthe necessary balance and inte-gration between the differentmodes of transport. From theenvironmental point of view,traffic growth is very worrying.Transport accounts for 25% of

total CO2 emissions in Europeand is a major source of noisepollution, up to 80% of the to-tal nuisance in some countries.As it expands, it inevitably in-creases the burden placed onthe environment. From conges-tion and the threat of gridlockto network maintenance, acci-dents and respiratory com-plaints, the social costs of ourmuch-prized mobility are self-evident.

Cities under threatIt is hardly surprising then thatan increase in traffic has re-duced the benefits of techno-logical advances such as catalyt-ic converters and otherimprovements. City dwellersare becoming increasingly re-sentful of the damage to health,the noise pollution and the landtake associated with cars andtrucks. However, new Euro-pean air quality standards willoblige cities to review their

transport policies and to findnew ways of providing citizenswith access to work, recreationand cultural activities, while si-multaneously protecting theirquality of life. Cities in Europewhich have already introducedthis new approach are encour-aged to exchange their respec-tive experiences. It also has torecognise that external factorslike price, quality and variety ofservice, journey length and theorganisation of social and eco-nomic life will continue to influ-ence the way these activitiesdevelop.

Plane, car, train aor boat?a

European forecasts suggest thatit will be up to the road systemto absorb a large part of the40% increase in the volume ofpassenger transport foreseenbetween now and 2010. Airtravel is also growing explosive-ly for both business and tourism(forecast increase of 182% un-til 2010). Meanwhile, ecologi-cally sound transport infrastruc-ture such as cycle routes,tramways and waterways, needto be revitalised and improvedif people are to be convincedthat they are an attractive alter-native.

ransport is continuing to grow at an unsustainablerate. Not only does it consume immense quantitiesof energy and space, it is also an important source ofatmospheric pollution, noise pollution as well as be-ing a growing contributor to climate change. Mostworrying of all, road traffic, the most damaging formof transport, is also the most popular.T

Facts and Trends

The earth’s clogged arteries

An increase of 182% in aerial traffic isexpected by the year 2010.

TRANSPORT

30

Although there have been Eu-ropean standards on emissionsfrom vehicles since the early1970s, it was only in the mid-1980s that a concern over acidrain led to standards which real-ly reduced emissions. Sincethen, the concern over thehealth and environmental ef-fects of vehicle emissions haveled to tough standards for pas-senger cars which could only bemet through the introduction ofthe three-way catalyst and stan-dards for lorries. However, theincreases in traffic have reducedthe benefits that these stan-dards have delivered as well asincreasing the concern overCO2 emissions from transport.

To tackle these problems theCommunity has taken a two-track approach. For air pollutantssuch as nitrogen oxides andsmoke particles, the Communityset clear air quality objectives

then looked at what needed tobe done to achieve these targets,taking into account the growthforecasts for transport and whatwas most cost-effective (Auto-Oil process). This has led to verystrict standards being laid downfor 2000 and 2005 for both vehi-cles and fuels. For CO2, (the maingas responsible for global war-ming) the Community developedthe CO2/cars Strategy, which hasas its objective a one third reduc-tion in emissions of CO2 fromnew passenger cars by the year2005 (or at the latest 2010).

However, if much has and willbe done to reduce air pollutionfrom growing traffic, the fact re-mains that growth in motor ve-hicles will continue to under-mine quality of life, especially inurban areas. Noise, traffic acci-dents, congestion and increasinglevels of CO2 pollution are justsome of the negative effects.

The next step for the Commu-nity and for Member States is tolook seriously at ways of curbingthe growth in transport. This ofcourse implies a range of mea-sures which focus on reducingthe demand for road transportwhilst providing acceptable al-ternatives for both passengerand freight transport.

IntegrationEuropean transport and environ-ment Ministers met together inJune 1998 to look at the pro-blems that transport poses to theenvironment. Having concludedthat present growth rates in roadtransport are unsustainable, theirHeads of State asked them tocome up with a plan to fully inte-grate environmental concernsinto transport policy, at all levels.

A New Look at MobilityThe EU is working with localauthorities, especially as part of

European environment and transport Ministers have con-cluded that the present rate of growth of road transport isunsustainable in the long term. All levels of government,from local to European, must now work together to deve-lop a sustainable transport system.

Europe in action

Sustainable mobility

Do cars still have their place in thetown center?(Amsterdam ‘Leidseplein’, the Netherlands)

TRANSPORT

31

the Car Free Cities Network,to try to reduce the demand formotorised transport in urbanareas whilst maintaining thesame level of accessibility toneeded services. Pilot studiesinto car sharing, improving thelink between different trans-port modes as well as road pri-cing have all been supported bythe Community.

Setting the standardNew standards for motor vehi-cles and fuels will come into ef-fect in 2000 and 2005. Thesestandards, which aim to reducenoxious emissions (exhaust gas-es) from motor cars, representsome of the toughest standardsin the world. The Community isalso working towards thestrategic environmental assess-ment of infrastructure building.

InfrastructureThe EU funds a good deal oftransport infrastructure buildingacross Europe. Too often, in thepast, this funding has workedagainst the development of sus-tainable transport systems. Inthe future, the Community mustensure that infrastructure pro-jects take full account of our en-vironmental objectives.

Economic approachThe Commission has proposedmeasures that will take greateraccount of the true externalcosts of transport by obligingheavy goods vehicles, for in-stance, to meet the infrastruc-ture and environment costs towhich they give rise. Anotheritem on the agenda is how touse vehicle tax to guide con-sumers towards cleaner andmore fuel-efficient cars.

CO2 from carsTo try to curb the growth inCO2 emissions from cars, theCommunity adopted theCO2/cars strategy. As part ofthe strategy, European car man-ufacturers have made a com-mitment to reduce by 25% the

emissions of CO2 from passen-ger cars. In addition, to enableconsumers to play their role,the Community will shortlyadopt legislation, which will en-sure that all European con-sumers will have information onthe fuel efficiency of new cars.

• Technological progress.• Development of the TEN.• Increased awareness on the part of Member

States and the public.• Growth in transport.• Privileged position enjoyed by roads. • Economic incentives determined by considera-

tions other than the environment.


Public transport pollutes less and clearsthe streets.(Tram in Strasbourg, France)

TRANSPORT

32

Could Europe do more?Further technological advancesand the introduction of evenmore rigorous standards are notenough in themselves tocounter the forecast increase intraffic and the implications ofthis for the environment. TheEU will have to launch new ini-tiatives to favour forms of trans-port that take better care of theenvironment. It also needs toensure greater safety when haz-ardous goods are transported,to improve traffic managementin the most sensitive areas andto use taxes in a way that en-courages users and operators tomake more reasonable choices.At infrastructure level, Europeshould ensure that its financialsupport of schemes to adjustthe transport mix is subjected tomore critical evaluation. Thestrategic environmental assess-ment, already mentioned, is oneway forward towards this goal.

Industrial responsibilityMuch has been done in the pastfew years to improve the qualityof vehicles and fuels. The Auto-Oil programme showed how in-dustry and governments couldcooperate to achieve environ-mental objectives. The recentenvironmental agreement onCO2 emissions between Euro-pean car manufacturers and Eu-rope is also positive, as to

achieve the agreed target willentail a great deal of investmentin new technology. However, itis not only the manufacturersbut also the providers of trans-port who can act – improvedfreight logistics, maintenance,driver behaviour can all play arole. Companies can also look attheir own transport needs andsee how these can be reducedor switched to more environ-mentally friendly modes. Carmanufacturers will also have tothink more about what happensat the end of a car’s life as newEU legislation on the recycleabil-ity of cars is now in the pipeline.

Understanding the Problem

Although the EU is aware of theconflict between transport andthe environment, no one quiteknows precisely to what extenttransport effects the environ-ment. To fill this gap, the Com-mission, including Eurostat, andthe European EnvironmentAgency are working together todevelop a set of indicators thatwill tell us where we are andhow much still needs to be done.

Local inputThe principles of subsidiarityand shared responsibility areparticularly relevant in the fieldof transport. A coherent ap-

proach requires that everybody- government, industry, trans-port companies and users -share in the effort. Local deci-sion-makers play a key role inshaping transport policies thatshow greater respect for theenvironment. They are step-ping up their efforts to tacklethe problem of congestion andpollution in urban centres. Taxincentives, efficient and accessi-ble public transport, free provi-sion of cycles and strategicallyplaced car parks to allow effec-tive links with public transportare just some of the steps thatcan help achieve this objective.

Convincing the userMember States and the EU facethe challenge to convince carusers to leave the car at homeand choose other options.However, until all transportmodes pay not only for the costof maintaining infrastructurebut also for the costs they causeto society (e.g. hospital admis-sions for children caused by airpollution) this will be difficult toachieve. Of course, at the sametime, public transport providersand local planners must provideattractive and environmentallyfriendly alternatives. Only inthis way can we persuade theusers of transport systems, you,to change your behaviour.


Private cars are generally non-eco-nomic and a waste of time.(City’s entrance – Northern Europe)

TRANSPORT

33

Almost every aspect of our dailylives depends on energy. Energykeeps us warm, fuels our carsand keeps our factories running.Problems in the energy supplyor fluctuations in the price offuel can have immense reper-cussions for the economy. Thiswas made painfully clear by thespectacular price increases thatoccurred in the 1970s, pushingthe West into recession.

Energy consumption, be it largeor small in scale, is linked just asclosely to fluctuations in theearth’s ecological balance. Ener-gy production is almost univer-sally harmful to the environment,from extraction, transport andrefining through to consumption.The risks can, however, be limi-ted to some extent by the type ofenergy we choose (hydropoweris a case in point).

Europe’s economy has grownimmensely since the early

1950s. We enjoy a standard ofliving previously undreamed of.This manifests itself in both in-dustry and everyday life in theform of unbridled consumption- an inexorable rise in the num-ber of cars, computers, washingmachines and kilometres trav-elled. Europe’s total gross in-land consumption (not includingthe USSR) grew 74% between1971 and 1990, from 770 to1340 Mtoe. Although our ma-chines have become more en-ergy-efficient, higher consump-tion has combined with anincrease in the number ofhouseholds to produce a gradu-al but steady rise in demand forenergy - roughly 0.6% a yearbetween 1974 and 1992.

CO2 in the dockTo put it bluntly, the rate atwhich demand for energy is

growing is incompatible withthe long-term survival of ourplanet. The hole in the ozonelayer and acid rain are merelythe most spectacular conse-quences of our voracious con-sumption of energy. CO2 is thebiggest villain. Massive quanti-ties of the gas are pumped intothe atmosphere by factorychimneys and car exhausts,making it one of the EuropeanUnion’s most pressing concerns.

None of the measures taken sofar has genuinely tackled theroot of the problem. The priceof oil has slipped back to an af-fordable level, sapping the willof domestic and industrial con-sumers to reduce their energyrequirements. Nor have theyshown much interest in alterna-tive or renewable energies.

Spectacular jumpDemand for electricity grew by2.7% a year in the period 1974-1992. In response, thegenerators increased capacityby 42% between 1980 and1992. The increase was spreadacross the different energysources, but most of the slackwas taken up by nuclear power,which now supplies 35% of allour electricity, almost matching

the share accountedfor by solid fuels.Hydropower, whichis known for its non-polluting character,makes up barely9% of total produc-tion. As for the risksassociated withatomic energy, nu-clear power stationshave little impact onthe environmentwhen operatingnormally, but the is-sue of nuclear wasteand its storage re-mains a key concernin today’s Europe.

nergy may be vital to our economic develop-ment, but it is also a gigantic source of environ-mental pollution. How can we reduce demandfor energy at a time when oil prices are so lowand our desire for comfort so high?E

Facts and Trends

A serious case of bulimia

Energy yes, but which kind?(Iron and steel industry –Belgium)

ENERGY

34

Greater cohesionEurope decided at a veryearly stage to devote aconsiderable amount ofmoney to improving theway it manages its energyconsumption. The problemthen arose of how to per-suade the governments,manufacturers, producers,distributors and con-sumers in its MemberStates that they ought tocoordinate their effortsmore effectively.

Europe was equally quick to in-corporate environmental con-cerns in its energy policy afterthe First Oil Crisis. Its motiva-tion was simple: greater ener-gy efficiency would simultane-ously reduce environmentalpollution and Europe’s depen-dence on the oil-producingcountries.

Although early measures tocombat air pollution and acidrain failed to reduce total ener-gy consumption in the EU, theyat least managed to slow downthe rate at which demand(gross inland consumption perunit of GDP) was increasing.

In more recent years, the EUhas launched a series of com-mon energy programmes tohelp meet the challenge ofbringing CO2 emissions back totheir 1990 level by the year2000. But these measures alonewere still clearly not enough.The EU’s next move was tocreate a set of new economicand fiscal weapons, which werebrought to bear first of all on cli-mate change. The most ambi-tious of the new instrumentswould be CO2 energy tax.What’s more, a great deal of theincrease in energy consumptionis attributable to countries out-side the EU. To address thisproblem, large-scale economicstimulation packages have beentargeted at the nations of Cen-tral and Eastern Europe and thenewly independent states of theformer USSR.

Partnership with energy suppliers

The EU has also introducedeconomic incentives to helptransform gas and electricitydistributors into service

providers with a vested interestin improving energy efficiency.In a similar kind of partnership,the Commission has brokered avoluntary agreement betweendomestic appliance manufac-turers.

What about renewable energies?

The pattern of energy produc-tion has changed over the pastten years. The share accountedfor by solid fuels has declined,while that of natural gas and nu-clear power has increased. Thetarget for 2010 is merely to ex-ceed a market share of 7.5%for renewable energies, com-pared to 5% in 1995. Despitevigorous promotion in theshape of a series of commonenergy programmes, renew-able energies are developingslowly because of the highercosts, operating constraints (re-newable solutions are extreme-ly localised or require a greatdeal of space) and difficulties ingetting beyond the trial stage.95% of this type of energycomes from biomass and hy-dropower. Other solutions pro-moted by Member States in-

Europe in action

Energy consumption by sector 1970-90.

Market share of energy types.Source : Eurostat.

ENERGY

35

clude biocombustibles (inFrance and Finland), solar ener-gy (Italy and the Netherlands),forestry waste (Denmark) andwind-farms (Greece and theNetherlands).

EU programmesThe JOULE Thermie pro-gramme, launched in 1990,promoted new, non-pollutingand efficient techniques for ra-tional energy use, renewableenergies, solid fuels and hydro-carbons. It was transformed in1995 into a new programme fornon-nuclear energy, designedto help reduce the adverse en-vironmental impact of exces-sive energy consumption and toensure sustainable energysources at an affordable price.

SAVE I was launched in 1991with the related goal of reduc-ing CO2 emissions. The aim ofSAVE is also to improve energymanagement by actions at localand regional level and to devel-op new instruments capable ofpromoting improved energy ef-ficiency.

ALTENER set out in 1993 toachieve the same goals via a dif-ferent route - promoting re-newable energies.

It was only in 1995 that com-petitiveness and security of sup-ply were added to the environ-mental aspect as key strands ofthe EU’s common energy poli-cy. The priority is now to en-sure that the costs of energyproduction and consumption

are integrated more effectivelyinto market prices.

• Despite a series of EU programmes, CO2 pro-duction in several sectors remains worrying.

• The use of renewable energies in most MemberStates has yet to advance beyond the researchstage.

• Incentives to improve energy efficiency not onlydepend on specific government policies but alsoon the supply situation. France has a goodrecord on CO2 reduction, for instance, but thisis chiefly due to the fact that it generates a largeproportion of its electricity using nuclear powerstations.

• Demand-side measures remain modest, despitenational programmes to improve energy effi-ciency.

• The low energy prices we are currently wit-nessing may be good for economic develop-ment but are a powerful disincentive when itcomes to saving energy.

Developments

Nuclear stations present different in-conveniences and risks to thermal sta-tions.(Cooling-tower)

The Good... ...the Bad

ENERGY

36

Long-term visionPolicies in this field have to belong-term in character if energyproduction and consumption areto be made less harmful to theenvironment. Europe intends tobuild on the achievements of ex-isting policy while focusing oncrucial factors like the forecastincrease in traffic. New ap-proaches were defined and pre-sented in 1994 in a documententitled ‘For a European UnionEnergy Policy’. The priorities setout at that time were to furtherdevelop clean technologies, toimprove energy efficiency and tomove towards a pricing systemthat takes full account of all themarket’s external costs.

Member States at workEU governments are support-ing the development of moreefficient energy use. Germany,Denmark, Luxembourg, theNetherlands and Greece, for in-

stance, are promoting tech-niques for combined heat andpower production. On the de-mand side, national energy pro-grammes have set targets forreducing energy consumption,but the measures actually takenremain very modest (insulatingbuildings, modernising publiclighting, etc.). If the balance is tobe corrected, these measuresneed to be linked with cleareconomic incentives. Specificagreements with large con-sumers are the most effectiveway of raising industry’s aware-ness of the environmental issue.This is the approach France hasadopted towards the steel, pa-per and paper pulp industries.

Mobilising Europe’s citizens (again)

The oil crisis in the 1970s madeEurope’s citizens acutely awareof the need to conserve energy.This awareness has, however,weakened considerably in recent

years as the price of oil returnedto a more affordable level. Con-stant discipline is needed if weare to reduce the amount of fuelused by our central heating sys-tems and cars. To address thisproblem, the EU has created lo-cal and regional energy manage-ment agencies. These are nowactive in quite a few MemberStates, where they support theefforts of gas and electricity dis-tributors and local authorities tohelp members of the publicmake the right energy choices.The number of publications andmembers of staff devoted to thisfield is increasing. There is an in-teresting Spanish energy guide,for instance, which offers practi-cal advice on the most effectiveuse of household appliances, do-mestic heating and alternativeenergy. Meanwhile, Danish elec-tricity bills include a detailedbreakdown of power consump-tion, which helps make cus-tomers more responsible.


Harnessing wind energy, this future so-lution nevertheless has its l imits.(Wind turbines – Douglas, central Scot-land)

ENERGY

37

AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY

FISHING AND AQUACULTURE

39

Agriculture and forestry:environmental victims...Atmospheric pollution, tropo-spheric ozone build-up and cli-mate change all affect growers’yields. Agriculture is also affectedby land sealing due to urbanisa-tion. Our forests, too, are beingdamaged by pollution. One treein four has been affected directlyor indirectly, by acid rains andtens of thousands of hectares areravaged by fire every year.

... environmental athreatsa

For many years, the main objec-tives of agricultural policy wereself-sufficiency in food and steadygrowth in productivity. Nationsneeded to produce more andmore all the time, causing themto invest successfully in mechani-sation and research. Chemicalfertilisers and pesticides didwonders for farmers’ yields.

The countryside has beentransformed to the detrimentof existing ecosystems(hedgerows and copses).

Characteristic habitats and gen-eral biodiversity have been lostand there have been other un-welcome consequences like soilerosion. Soil can suffer fromerosion, compaction and re-

duced fertility, some of whichcan be the result of excessivemechanisation on the farm,which can do irreparable dam-age. Intensive use of fertilisershas adversely affected ground-water and encouraged eutrophi-cation in surface waters. Inten-sive animal husbandry producesmethane and ammonia and pol-lutes the atmosphere, while theimmense quantities of liquid ma-nure produced by agriculturalfirms have become an acute li-quid waste disposal problem. In-tensive irrigation and drainagepractises also contribute toprominent problems such aswater scarcity and loss of wet-lands which have an importantregulatory function in hydrolo-gic concerns. Things aren’t muchbetter in our forests, wheremonoculture has again alteredthe landscape and reduced bio-diversity. Human beings have

long since exterminated all thelarge predators in many of ourforests (wolf, lynx and bear).

In Europe the abandonment offarming activities would dam-age biodiversity and in any casewould not normally lead to therecreation of the aboriginal na-tural status. The challenges pro-posed by both the intensifica-tion and abandonment offarming, therefore, raise ques-tions concerning the relation-ship between agriculture andthe environment and the futurebasis for the European model ofsustainable agriculture.

Changing the face of agriculture

In the last few years, however,the trend has gradually reverseditself as governments and citi-zens alike have grown increas-ingly aware of the prevailingproblems. For their part, con-sumers are demanding healthierand better quality products.Governments, meanwhile, havebeen encouraging forms of agri-culture that are more beneficialto the environment, such as lessintensive farming methods, or-ganic farming and the mainte-nance and planting ofhedgerows. Europe’s totalforested area has grown by 10%in the space of a few years.

armland and forests account for 42% and 33%respectively of all Europe’s territory. Therecould hardly be a clearer indication of how ourenvironment has been shaped by these land-scapes. Farmers have traditionally been viewedas the gardeners and custodians of the country-side.Nevertheless, all sorts of problems have fre-quently been laid at the farmer’s door. The rela-tionship between agriculture and the environ-ment is complex, but we should never lose sightof the fact that farming itself also suffers fromecological damage — albeit sometimes self-in-flicted.F

Facts and Trends

Agriculture and the environment -a marriage of convenience

Fertilizers or pesticides, the use ofthese leaves its mark on nature.(Agricultural manuring – Alsace,France)


40

The Common Agricultural Poli-cy (CAP) has long shaped theface of European farming. Be-fore the 1992 reforms, the CAPwas essentially based on a sys-tem of guaranteed prices (irres-pective of demand), subsidies,investment incentives, importtariffs and research subsidies.This approach encouraged ex-cess production of cereals,beef, wine and dairy products.Quotas were introduced in the1980s but these were still in-tended to guarantee pricesrather than achieve any particu-lar ecological advances.

It was only in 1985 that the Eu-ropean Community acknowl-edged the damage that agricul-ture can wreak on theenvironment. Since 1987, theCAP has adopted measures en-abling, in particular, MemberStates to compensate farmerswho set aside land from cultiva-tion in sensitive zones.

The cost of the surpluses, thatof storing and distributing themon the external markets and themacroeconomic imbalances to

which this gave rise, led to amajor overhaul of the CAP in1992. The aim was to reducethe surpluses and to go someway towards separating farm-ers’ income from their output.Accordingly, the Commissionproposes, in the future, to relyless and less on price supportmechanisms, for they cannotguarantee farm incomes in thelong-term.

The Commission’s proposals forthe reform of the CAP underAGENDA 2000 seek to deepenthe shift towards an environ-ment sustainable agriculture.

Reconciling agriculture and the environment

Today’s Common AgriculturalPolicy has to reconcile theneeds of producers with envi-ronmental protection andmaintenance of the rural stan-dard of living. As regards thespecific measures, they offercompensation or subsidies for:

• The use of less intensivemethods: reducing pesticideand fertiliser inputs, for in-stance, and lowering thenumber of cattle per hectare;

• The transformation of arableland and pasture into mead-ows;

• The development of methodsto safeguard the quality ofbiotopes (planting and main-tenance of hedgerows, main-tenance of woods or copses);

• The long-term set-aside offarmland;

• Reforestation projects;• Switching to organic farming.

Organic farmingInterest in organic farming isgrowing as people begin torecognise the damage that in-tensive agriculture can cause tothe environment and to peo-ple’s health and as consumerdemand for alternative pro-ducts increases. However, or-ganic agriculture is less produc-

Europe in action

A better understanding of the CAP

Intensive breeding causes specific pollu-tion problems, underestimated for along time.(Cattle breeding – French speaking Bra-bant, Belgium)


41

tive which means that produceis often more expensive.

To avoid possible abuses, theEuropean Community estab-lished a framework for the pro-duction and labelling of organicproducts.

Related policiesThe objectives of the CAP arebacked up by other directives,including those designed toprotect our surface andgroundwater — known collec-tively as the ‘nitrates directive’.First adopted in 1991, this setsout to reduce the water pollu-tion caused by nitrates used infarming and to prevent any newpollution of this type. Toachieve this objective, the di-rective asks Member States toidentify the surface area of theirrespective territories suscepti-ble to pollution of this kind. Ac-tion programmes will then beestablished in those zones toreduce nitrogenous pollution atsource. This will also entailMember States drafting codesof agricultural good practice.A new framework directive onground and surface water hasbeen proposed which ought to

provide solid protection forthese waters throughout theEuropean Union.

aForestsaHuge areas of European forestsare regularly burned down (1% a year). An EU regulationon fire-safety in forests allowsat-risk zones to be identifiedand joint action plans to be ap-proved.

The Fifth Programme projectsan increase in the forested areaand encourages a management

approach that takes proper ac-count of ecological needs.

Thousands of hectares offorests have suffered from acid-ification. The Community is ad-dressing the direct causes ofthis problem by establishingstandards for pollution generat-ed by industry and the burningof fossil-fuels.

1992: Reform of the CAP

The reforms recognised the environmental role played byagriculture and featured the following key elements:• Reducing the role of the market and introducing pro-

gressively lower prices for agricultural produce;• Establishing a guaranteed and direct income for farmers,

independent of production levels, to compensate themfor these reductions in price;

• Planning the compulsory set-aside of certain arable lands;• Encouraging non-intensive husbandry of cattle and sheep;• Maintaining certain quotas, such as those for milk and

sugar;• Supplementary measures including subsidies for tree

planting and organic and non-intensive farming, and sup-port for voluntary set-aside.

Forests, a renewable resource, must berationally exploited.(Forest scenery – Northern Europe)


42

A code of good agricultural practice

In December 1991, the Euro-pean Community adopted thedirective on the protection ofwaters from nitrate pollutioncaused by farming (the ‘nitratesdirective’). Under the terms ofthe directive, Member Stateswill draw up codes of good agri-cultural practice for nitrate fer-tilisation.

These codes will reflect realityon the ground as they attemptto ensure the proper use ofchemical or organic fertilisers.The measures are voluntary forfarmers, except where the ac-tivities in question take place ina zone designated as sensitive.

Member States will also contin-ue the EU’s pursuit of CAP re-form by introducing agriculturaland environmental measurestailored to the local situationand, in some cases, pro-grammes of their own. Regionaland municipal government canhelp promote the application ofthese measures by providingsubsidies or by awarding farm-ers specific ecological labels.

ConsumersCitizens are consumers with aninfluence on demand, whichmeans their behaviour can helpshape the supply of agriculturalproduce and, by extension,farming practices themselves.They can choose free-rangechickens rather than battery-raised ones, unprocessed fruitrather than graded, and season-al vegetables rather than ones‘forced’ with doses of fertiliser.They can also opt for organicproducts. Although thesechoices are not always easy onthe wallet, they are beneficial tohealth and can have a modestimpact on farming practices.

aForestsaForests are renewable re-sources, but only in the verylong term. European MemberStates have taken care for sometime now to ensure that theirwoodland resources are man-aged sustainably by introducingrules that require replanting af-ter felling. Such care is particu-larly important in mountainousareas, which are vulnerable to

avalanches and erosion. Subsi-dies are available to encouragelandowners to replant certaincategories of farmland withtrees.

International cooperation in theforestry field dates back someway. This is particularly the casewith research, which has beenheaded since 1980 by the Inter-national Association of ForestryResearch Organisations. Morerecently, the second MinisterialConference on the Protectionof Forests was held in Helsinkiin June 1993 and its follow-up in Lisbon in June 1998, when 45countries, inspired by the RioSummit, undertook to do all intheir power to promote thesustainable development of Eu-rope’s forests and to conservetheir biodiversity.


The appearance of a piece of fruit orvegetables doesn’t always guarantee itsquality.


43

Recent increase in fishing

Fishing, both in EuropeanUnion waters and elsewhere,became more intensive fromthe 1960’s as European andworld demand for fish in-creased and as markets diversi-fied and became more readilyavailable. The intensificationwas also promoted by the avail-ability of relatively cheap fuelfor fishing vessels, togetherwith the use of more sophisti-cated technology, both in thedesign of nets and of navigation-al and fish-finding devices.

As a result, many of the fishstocks exploited by the vesselsof the European Union are tooheavily fished. Sometimes, theymay even not be able to replen-ish themselves.

Fewer large, old fish are nowavailable. Many fisheries there-fore direct their activities to-wards the smaller, youngerfish.

There is also the search for pre-viously unexploited resourceson species, which inhabit deepwaters over the continental

slope and/or the abyssal plainswhich has led to the develop-ment of fisheries. These specieshave low reproductive andgrowth rates and may thereforerapidly become severely de-pleted.

It’s not only about fish...

One associated effect of fish-ing includes changes in thespecies composition of the bi-ological communit ies andchanges of the size and agecomposition within many af-fected species.

Species other than those forwhich the fisheries have an eco-nomic interest or major depen-dency are also caught. These in-clude marine mammals (mainlysmall whales, dolphins, porpois-es and seals), marine birds andmarine reptiles (mainly turtles).Also caught incidentally aresome fish species, such as stur-geon, whose populations areconsidered to be in an endan-gered state. Some types of fish-ing may disrupt communities ofinvertebrate animals, which livein or on the seabed.

A severe threat to the criticallyendangered Monk seal contin-ues to be the loss of suitablehabitat, often as a result of de-velopment of coastal tourism.The accidental or even deliber-ate killing by fishermen, and thereduction in availability of ap-propriate food as a result of in-creased fishing activity, repre-sent additional threats to theseanimals. Moreover, catastroph-ic natural mortality episodeslike the one that occurred in1997 add to the risk of extinc-tion of this species.

AquacultureFish and fish products are alsoincreasingly produced by aqua-culture in the hope to help off-set the overall decline in pro-duction from the wild fishstocks exploited by convention-al fisheries.

However, the pract ice ofaquaculture is not free frompotentially adverse environ-mental effects. These some-times manifest themselves aseutrophication or deoxygena-tion of areas in the vicinity ofaquaculture establishments,which may be caused by therelease of effluents from suchplants.

In addition, escapes of exoticspecies or specifically bredstocks of indigenous speciesmay cause a problem.

Fisheries... also a victim

There may also be negative ef-fects of pollution on fish oraquaculture, either by directmortality of fish or by variousdebilitating processes such asreduction in reproductive po-tential. Conversely, it has beenclaimed that influx of phos-phates has, in some geographi-cal areas such as the North Sea,fertilised these areas and has re-sulted, inter alia, in increasedproduction of at least some fishspecies.

arine fishing is an important economic activityin the European Union even though it employsonly a limited number of people. The EU's260,000 fishermen and women account formuch less than 1% of its working population,but their activities are supported by a numberof other commercial and manufacturing sec-tors such as boatbuilding and the processingand distribution of fish and fish products.

Denmark, Spain and the United Kingdom arethe major marine fishing nations of the Euro-pean Union.

Commercial fishing in freshwater is of limitedimportance within the European Union al-though it is of local importance in Swedenand Finland.M

Facts and TrendsFisheries: an essential economy


44

A Common Fisheries Policy

The future of fishing fundamen-tally depends on the future ofthe fish themselves. Recogni-tion of this fact prompted theEuropean Community to devel-op a policy of sustainable devel-opment with respect to the ex-ploitation of fish stocks which isintended to reconcile the legiti-macy of exploiting fish stockswith the need to conserve suchstocks.

Zones and quotas

In 1977, most of the world’snations, including the currentEU Member States, estab-l ished Exclusive EconomicZones. These zones gave tothese nations exclusive rightson a number of issues, includ-ing fishing, within 200 nautical

miles from their respectivecoastlines.

In 1983, a number of Total Al-lowable Catches (TAC’s) forthe major fish stocks in the wa-ters of the Community was es-tablished. The Council alsoagreed upon allocation of theseTAC’s among Member States asnational quotas under a systemthat became known as relativestability.

The relative stability system al-locates fixed and agreed per-centages of TAC’s to MemberStates.

In principle, TAC’s and quotascontrol the output from fish-eries and this should be suffi-cient to ensure sustainability.

However, the existence of‘mixed fisheries ’ in whichmany fishes are caught simul-taneously, gives rise to prob-lems with respect to over-shooting TAC’s.

Control of fishing effort

In 1992, against the backgroundof increasing rates of exploita-tion and hence of increasing riskto the sustainabil ity of f ishstocks, other tools were devel-oped among which the directcontrol of fishing effort.

To control fishing effort, there-fore, we have introduced con-trol of ‘kilowatt-days’ or someequivalent quantity.

Control of thecapacity

of the fleetsIn addition to direct control offishing effort, Member Stateshave recognised that many oftheir fishing fleets are simplytoo large.

Europe in action

Towards solutions

Sea fishing in an act of human predationwhich has to be limited. (Trawler in the North Sea).


45

In response to this problem,Member States have partici-pated in a series of Multi-An-nual Guidance Programmes(MAGP) by which the size ofall or some of their fleets willbe reduced by agreedamounts.

Parallel social and economicmeasures have been introducedto alleviate the transition tosmaller fleets and reduced fish-ing effort.

Aquaculture has developped greatlyduring the last decades.(Aquaculture, Ireland)

Fishing represents many jobs in Europe.(Back from fishing – Portugal)


46

Technical measuresSince 1984, a package of techni-cal measures has been in placefor fisheries in the north-eastAtlantic. These measures de-fine, inter alia, minimum meshsizes of nets and closed areasand closed seasons primarily in-tended for the protection of ju-venile fish.

For the Baltic, a similar packagehas been in existence since1986.

The MediterraneanIn the Mediterranean, no Ex-clusive Economic Zones havebeen established. Because ofthis and because of the highlymultispecific nature of catchesin many of the fisheries, espe-cially by trawls or similar fish-ing methods, no TAC and quo-ta system has beenestablished.

However, in 1994, the Counciladopted a regulation definingtechnical measures applicableto the vessels of Member Stateswhether fishing within theirown territorial limits or be-yond. The Multi-Annual Guid-ance Programmes also apply toCommunity fleets fishing withinthe Mediterranean.

The European Union has alsoorganised two International

Diplomatic Conferences, in1994 and 1996, on the manage-ment of Mediterranean fishstocks which were attended byall Mediterranean States.

Reduction of coincidental catches

It can be reasonably expectedthat reduction in fishing effortand the size of fleets should leadto reduction in coincidentalcatches of birds, mammals, rep-tiles, etc. even though this is notalways specifically mentioned inthe legal texts.

More thought needs still to begiven to establishing condi-tions for the protection ofthose species taken by fishinggears but which are not re-quired by fishermen. Also tobe considered is the possibilityof establishing conditions tominimise the risk of food de-privation for marine birds andmammals.

Control andenforcement

It would be naive to expectfishermen at sea to automati-cally obey Community Regula-tions and therefore a regula-t ion has been put in placesimply which is why a regula-tion dealing specifically with

the monitoring and control offishing activities has been putinto place.

Each Member State monitorsand controls the activities ofvessels of their own or otherMember States or of thirdcountry vessels. The EuropeanCommission also employs itsown inspectors.

The skippers of any Communi-ty f ishing vessel of lengthgreater than 10 metres have tokeep a log-book to record, inparticular, the quantities of eachspecies caught and the amountretained on board. Specific re-quirements are also in forcewith respect to declaration oflandings at ports and recordingsales at auction centres andelsewhere.

Large, highly mobile vessels(greater than 20 meters overalllength) now have to carry satel-lite monitoring devices.

The futureThe European Commissionrecognises 2002 as a suitabledate by which to implementpossible modifications and aug-mentations of the CommonFisheries Policy and is alreadypreparing the ground for awide-ranging discussion withadministrations of MemberStates and with all other inter-ested parties.

It is difficult to predict in detailthe precise outcome of thisdiscussion. However, it shouldbe recalled that, throughoutthe world, all managementsystems for the conservationof fish stocks include somecombination of TAC ’s andquotas, effort control andtechnical measures.



The submarine fauna is also the subjectof a scientific follow-up.(Monitoring in the Mediterranean)

47

THE CONSUMER SOCIETY

TOURISM AND LEISURE

49

European households (that is,groups of people sharing thesame living space) monopolise5-30% of water supplies, 15-20% of electricity consumptionand over 70 % of manufacturedgoods. Mass consumption onthis scale has transformedhouseholds into key economicplayers, but also means thatthey have a significant impact onthe environment. Pressure isexerted at two distinct stages— consumer demand places anintense burden on natural re-sources, while the manufac-ture, use and disposal of con-sumer goods pollute the water,air and soil. Over 75% of Euro-pean households, for instance,have at least one car — a figurethat continues to rise by 20%since 1985. These generate 5%of SO2 emissions (both vehicu-lar and otherwise) and 10% ofvolatile organic compounds(heating and cars).

Sadly, this situation is unlikely toimprove in the years to come. Itis true that more and more Eu-ropean citizens are realising thatby consuming more selectivelyand wasting less, they can re-duce the harm they do to theenvironment. Important as thisnew awareness is, though, itcannot outweigh the overallgrowth in the purchasing powerof the average European citizen.

Consumers as a pressure group

When it comes to persuadingmanufacturers to adopt cleanerindustrial processes and to re-duce the environmental impactof their operations, consumershave a formidable weapon attheir disposal in that they canrefuse to place certain productsin their supermarket trolleys.Households can thus exert a sig-

nificant influence on the differ-ent sectors of the economywhen making their everydaychoices from amongst the well-filled shelves of the local super-store. They depend however onretailers who act more andmore as ecological gatekeepers.

European statistics reveal thatcitizens’ ecological awarenesshas risen in l ine with theirhousehold income. In otherwords, and at the risk of seem-ing to contradict what was saidabove about how higher in-come means increased con-sumption of goods and services,the richer we are, the relativelymore ecological we could be-come in our consumer be-haviour. A range of other fac-tors is also at play. Take theissue of ‘size’. We know thatsmaller households (an estab-lished trend) use relativelymore energy and water and oc-cupy more land (per person) asthey do not achieve theeconomies of scale of largerhouseholds.

olding back domestic consumption is no easy mat-ter, especially at a time when the number ofhouseholds is expanding so quickly (not to men-tion their appetite for goods and services). Theearth, which has to support them all, has comeclose to throwing in the towel.H

Facts and Trends

The hazards of the consumer society

What actions have European citizenstaken or would they consider taking tosafeguard the environment? 70% of re-spondents said that they had alreadybought ecological products or would doso, even if they were more expensive.(EU,1992).

PERSONAL ACTIONS TAKEN TO IMPROVE THE ENVIRONMENT


50

Households have always beenkey players in environmentalpolicy because of the holidaysthey take, the gas they con-sume to keep themselveswarm, the cars they buy toget them around and theirlove affair with shopping. Thisfact has not always been takenfully into account, however,by the powers-that-be. Al-though they have been target-ed indirectly by measures tocontrol vehicle emissions andfuel consumption, to improveenergy efficiency and to re-duce waste-generation, pri-vate citizens have never beenplaced at the centre of Euro-pean programmes in this field.Policies have tended to beaimed instead at the produc-ers of goods and services. Theperiod 1990-95 was very sig-nificant in this regard as it saw

the development of technolo-gies and products capable ofreducing the burden placedon the environment (catalyticconverters, unbranded prod-ucts , CFC-free products ,etc).

Labels to help consumers in their

choiceA series of labels intending todistinguish the most environ-mental ly fr iendly productshave been developed in theEU to help consumers to makethe right environmental choicewhen shopping. Created in1992, the European Eco-labelis a great step forward to pro-moting environmental lyfr iendly consumption. I tsstrength lies in its unique Eu-ropean dimension which en-ables the European consumersto easily identify green prod-ucts throughout the 15 Mem-ber States of the EU, Norway,Iceland and Liechtenstein andin its rigorous life cycle analy-sis.

Today, the European Eco-labelcovers thirteen different prod-ucts: dishwashers, washing ma-chines, refrigerators, comput-ers, laundry detergents, lightbulbs, tissue paper, shoes, tex-tiles, paints and varnishes, copy-ing paper, soil improvers andbed mattresses.

There is a European energy la-bel which indicates the energyconsumption of domestic appli-ances and various national la-bels.

Brief review of actions

1. CONTROLSThese have proved theireffectiveness in a range ofeveryday f ie lds , f romhome insulation, improvedwater management andthe creation of no-smok-ing areas to the reductionof CFC compounds in themanufacture of consumergoods and municipal col-lection and sorting of recy-clable goods.

2. EUROPEAN ECO-LABEL250 products already bearthe European daisy logofor the European Eco-la-bel. The label is awardedby a National CertificationBody on ly to productswhich comply with thestrict ecological criteriadefined after a ‘cradle tograve’ analysis which iden-tifies where the productpotentially does the mostharm to the environmentat each stage of its life cy-cle.

3. ECO-TAXESThe EU supports the am-bitious idea of taxing pol-luting products to encour-age consumers andmanufacturers to switchto less harmful alterna-t ives . Exper ience in anumber of cases has beenextremely positive, withbehav iour success fu l l ymodif ied in the desiredway. An example is lead-free petrol, which madei ts f i r s t appearance in1986 and now accountsfor over 60% of the mar-ket. There has been a con-tinuing increase in the useof environmental taxesover the las t decade,which has accelerated inthe last 5 years. It also ap-pears that most of the tax-es have achieved their en-vironmental objectives atreasonable cost.

Europe decided that if it was to reduce the harmful impactof domestic consumption on the environment, it had toregulate production more effectively. Early results werenot satisfactory, however, and so a change of tack wasneeded. The EU’s current approach is to try and involve allthe relevant players in its strategy.

Europe in action

Key players

Community eco-label

award scheme


Community eco-label award scheme:display the difference.

51

4. INFORMATIONInformation has becomeincreasingly transparentand accessible at local, re-gional and national levelthanks to the directive onfreedom of access to envi-ronmental data. The Di-rective represents a dra-mat ic change for mostMember States, introduc-ing openness where se-crecy was the rule. Fouryears of experience haveshown, however, that theprocess o f change i s agradual one and that con-tinued progress, both interms of the quantity andthe quality of the informa-tion available, is still desir-able.

• A more aware and better-informed public is be-

coming more demanding;

• Improved energy-efficiency in the domestic

field;

• Scientific and technical advances;

• All the indicators show that consumption of raw

materials, energy, transport and tourist services

is continuing to grow remorselessly;

• Demographic growth and shrinkage in the size

of households.


To choose products which respect theenviroment. (Housewife’s caddie


52

Europe changes its target

Europe understands that it isconsumers as well as retailersand no longer just manufacturerswho hold the key to the problemof the environment. For that rea-son, EU policies to reduce eco-logical damage in the run-up tothe year 2000 have shifted theirfocus to private citizens. The goalis to reduce domestic consump-tion of energy, water and trans-port by encouraging householdsto adopt habits that are more inline with the principle of sustain-able development. This will be aparticularly difficult challenge tomeet, not least because of thesignificant number of parties in-volved. Europe also has to com-municate with its citizens in away that is acceptable to every-one. While it must be honestabout the problems, it cannot af-ford to be alarmist. It also has toovercome the reluctance gener-ated by the prospect of higherprices. The use of eco-taxes, forinstance, is far from generally ac-cepted as yet.

Responsible manufacturers

Industry has made substantialecological advances in recentyears under pressure frompoliticians and consumers. Itmust now continue along thepath of clean production byagreeing a series of environmen-tal accords with national govern-ments, undertaking to respectthe codes of conduct drawn upby its various federations.

Enhanced informationand education

Although Europe has improvedaccess to environmental infor-mation, it is up to national andlocal governments to put theprinciple of transparency trulyinto practice. Sweden hasachieved a great deal in thisarea. The government has en-sured that full details are nowavailable regarding hazardoussubstances, but has also al-lowed citizens to mount theirown actions, boycotting certain

products, demanding better la-belling, but also engaging in dia-logue with the chemical indus-try. Consumer organisationslike ‘Which’ in the UK and ‘Quechoisir?’ in France can alsomake a positive social contribu-tion in this respect, alongsidetheir direct campaigning.

Consuming moreresponsibly

If there is a demand, producersare sure to meet it. Consumerslike ourselves have grown ac-customed to certain comfortsfrom which we will find it diffi-cult to wean ourselves. Otherthan convenience, however,there is very little to justify ourcurrent obsession with throw-away products and individualservings. The challenge is how-ever to address both conve-nience and the environment,often a matter of providing theright infrastructure.


Leaded-petrol is condemned to disappear.


53

Tourism has grown exponentiallyover the past thirty years. Thereasons aren’t difficult to find: sub-stantially improved road net-works, more disposable cash forholidays and ever-cheaper airtravel. Not to mention the open-ing up of international frontiersand a plethora of travel informa-tion. Europe is an extremely pop-ular holiday destination for foreigntourists. The number of arrivalsrose from 200 to 300 million be-tween 1980 and 1990. Tourismcurrently generates no less than5.5 % of the European Union’stotal GNP. It is a fully-fledged in-dustry that delivers jobs and eco-nomic development. When it ispoorly managed, however, or al-lowed to get out of hand, tourismbecomes another major source ofpollution. The negative effects arevaried and complex. Tourism candamage air and water quality, putpressure on traditional habitats,promote deforestation and gen-erate large volumes of waste. Atthe same time, its future develop-ment is intimately bound up withthe quality of the environment.The tourism industry has a directinterest in pursuing a strategycompatible with the objectives ofsustainable development.No tourist wants to swim in wa-ter that smells bad or to visit adead forest. If tourism develop-ment is conceived not as an end initself but as a tool for improvinglocal ways of life and protectingthe local environment, then it cangenerate new resources for envi-ronmental protection.

An economic issueThe future development of Eu-rope’s tourist industry dependson political stability, a soundeconomy and steadily increasingleisure time. The sector is fore-cast to grow by almost 6% an-

nually until the year 2000. Otherimportant trends include:– steady growth in all regions;– Central and Eastern Europe

and the Eastern Mediter-ranean will experience vigor-ous growth in tourism;

– an increasing number oftourists from Southern Eu-rope are visiting the North;

– the number of people visitingtourist sites hit by environ-mental problems (the Alpsand the Mediterranean, forinstance) is declining;

– the number of car and planejourneys is increasing;

– interest in green tourism andshort-haul holidays is growing;

– a wide range of tourist opportu-nities and services are on offer;

– costs are falling.

From seashore tomountain top

It goes without saying that pollu-tion does not affect all tourist lo-cations in the same way. Naturalparks, mountains, coastal resorts,rural areas, towns and themeparks offer hundreds of differentactivities. You can only ski in themountains and the impact of thisactivity (soil erosion, deforesta-tion, infrastructure building) is to-tally different to the damagewrought by those who preferseaside holidays (destruction ofdunes, deteriorating water quali-ty, etc.). Within these categories,however, there are a number ofconstants when it comes to theunderlying causes of pollution:large numbers of visitors, season-al concentrations, type of trans-port, real-estate pressures and soon. Cities are other black spots.Not only are their own inhabi-tants responsible for a great dealof pollution, they are becomingincreasingly popular tourist desti-nations. This poses the danger ofadditional air and noise pollutionin urban areas and threatens ourhistoric monuments

ourism’s mission is to become the European Union’spremier economic activity by the end of the centu-ry. It is vital, however, that the sector manages itsdevelopment more responsibly. Greater respect forthe environment is the first item on the list.T

Facts and Trends

Greening the tourist

To enjoy the benefits of nature while re-specting it.(Green leisure activities by the river ‘laMolignée’ – Namur, Belgium)

TOURISM AND LEISURE

54

A multi-disciplinaryapproach

The EU does not have anyspecific remit for the tou-rism sector, but can influ-ence environmental manage-ment in areas as varied aswater, transport, waste andinfrastructure financing.

The Fifth Environmental ActionProgramme proposed somemeasures regarding tourism:

1/ Better dispersion of tourismin time and space

2/ Promotion of environmentfriendly forms of tourism

3/ Reduction private car use infavour of public transport

4/ Better management of masstourism

5/ Awareness raising of tourists

Presently the Commission sup-ports three studies on coastal, ru-ral and urban tourist destinationswith the following objectives:

– to identify and analyse bestpractices in the field of inte-grated quality managementof tourist destinations in the

European Economic Areacountries; and

– to contribute to the exchangeof experience and the transferof know-how within Europe,and thus provide valuable gui-dance both to the public sectorand to the private sector andto other interested parties.

Integrated Quality Managementshould both take into accountand have a favourable impact ontourism businesses, tourist sat-isfaction, local population andenvironment.

Additional measuresOther measures can also help di-rectly or indirectly to reduce theimpact of tourism on the environ-ment. The EU directive on urbanwastewater collection and treat-ment can be of particular impor-tance in coastal cities where thepopulation sometimes doublesduring the high season in summer.And the directive on bathing wa-ter quality sets both standards forpublic health and environmentprotection. A lot of local initiativesaim to prevent gross pollution bywaste — softdrink cans, plasticbags,... — of the beach and its sur-roundings, such as the dunes. TheBlue Flag initiative is an exampleof a non-governmental projectlinking public health and environ-ment concerns, Europe’s desireto manage tourist sites environ-mentally and the tourism sector’sinterest in protecting its naturalassets over the long term.

Europe has also had a major in-fluence on the tourism industryby promoting more environ-mentally friendly infrastructureprojects. The Structural Fund hasdevoted over three billion ecu toco-financing transport, water-treatment and waste-manage-ment projects in four countries(Spain, Portugal, Greece and Ire-land). Part of the LIFE pro-gramme also involves projectsrelating to the protection and

Europe in action

Will the growing tourism industry keepthis beach as charming in 10 years?(Corfu, Greece)

TOURISM AND LEISURE

55

management of coastal zonesand wastewater processing. TheCommission is carrying out theICZM (Integrated Coastal ZonesManagement) demonstrationprogramme. Based on its experi-ences in this programme theCommission is launching a widedebate on a possible future Euro-pean Strategy for ICZM.

Beefing up environmental impact

assessmentsThe EU has adopted the modifi-cation to 1985’s EnvironmentalImpact Assessment Directive.Tourism and leisure have beenconsidered as areas of applica-tion of the new directive, espe-cially regarding ski runs, holidayvillages, hotel. complexes,leisure centres and campsites.

Trial runsManaging tourist infrastructure,raising public awareness andtraining operators were all triedout first at local, regional or na-tional level. Limiting bed capaci-ty or tourist numbers (certainnational parks, islands and his-toric sites) and restrictions onnew building are all examples ofplanning measures taken by the

relevant authorities, which cancall on both national regulationsand the European Environmen-tal Impact Assessment Direc-tive. EU programmes and theEuropean Social Fund have sup-ported a series of ventures, in-cluding the guides to good prac-tice published by hotel. chains

and automobile clubs and theimproved training of tourist staff.

• Public and industry awareness of the dangers ofmass tourism.

• Development of eco-tourism.• More responsible management of tourism at

Member-State level (awarding of tourist ‘eco-labels’).

• Development of new, more environmentallyfriendly tourist activities.

• The exponential growth of the tourism sector.• The undermining of environmental policies in

sensitive areas by tourist activities.• The tourism sector’s environmental impact

can’t be fully evaluated because of the frag-mentary nature of the available information.

• Lack of a clear regional strategy for promotinga more environmentally friendly tourism.


Cultural tourism is in full growth. But itdevelops its own forms of pollution too.(Piazza San Marco, Venice)

TOURISM AND LEISURE

56

Taking a long viewEuropean finance (particularlythe Cohesion Fund) will havean immense influence on theway tourism develops in theyears to come thanks to its in-volvement in trans-Europeantransport networks, water-treatment and waste-manage-ment infrastructures and habi-tat protection.

A common strategy

It is up to the regions to de-ve lop a c lear s trategy tonurture ‘Green Tour ism ’ .Their closest ally in this pro-cess will be the tourism indus-try itself, which will help thevarious regional bodies to en-courage the diversification oftourist activities and to man-age mass tourism more effec-tively. This will be done firstand foremost by improvingservice quality and by encour-aging a posit ive change intourist behaviour. But infor-mation campaigns and codesof conduct a lone are not

enough if we are to persuadethe public to pay more re-spect to an env ironmentwhich, by definition, is not fa-miliar to them. The only wayto get tourists to leave theirbeloved cars behind is by of-fering them the opportunityto travel by train, bus or boat.

The battle goes onThe policy initiatives launchedby Member States in recentyears have generally been de-signed to take better accountof the environmental impactof tourism. This has led, for in-stance, to improvements inthe road infrastructure. Al-though initiatives of this kindallow us to restrict access tocertain highly sensitive zonesand to manage congestionmore effectively during thegreat holiday exodus, theyhave had l i t t le impact ontourist numbers or the areasthey overrun. If anything, theyhave had the contrary effect.For that reason, we will haveto encourage tourism to alter-native destinations or at alter-native times of year.

The public’s tastes are changing

The number of European and in-ternational tourists is growing allthe time. Fortunately, many ofthem are also showing signs ofmore responsible behaviour.There is clear interest, for exam-ple, in new types of leisure (visitsto natural parks, rural gîtes andholiday farms, eco-tourism)which integrate more harmo-niously with the local economy.These account for a substantialproportion of the wider range ofdestinations now on offer andthe gradual spreading out of hol-iday periods. These new con-verts to nature must understand,however, that an unbridled rushinto the countryside could putEurope’s wildest regions at risk(especially the Far North andRussia). The behaviour of suchtourists is often contradictory.Although they display a growingecological awareness, they havea taste for sporting activities thatare eating up more and more ofour unspoiled countryside in thename of thrills rather than that ofcommuning with nature.


Managing tourism, this takes responsi-bility as regards to the environment.(Rhodes, Greece)

TOURISM AND LEISURE

57

CLIMATE CHANGE

OZONE LAYER

ACIDIFICATION

AIR QUALITY

59

The ‘natural’ greenhouse effect

The atmosphere that surroundsus creates a ‘natural’ green-house effect around the earth.The gases of which it is com-posed absorb the sun’s rays andgive off heat, just like the glass ina greenhouse. Without them,the average temperature on theearth’s surface would be nohigher than minus 18 degrees.All the water would be frozensolid and the planet would beuninhabitable.

Upset balanceSince the beginning of the cen-tury, a considerable increase inenergy consumption in the in-dustrialised countries has be-gun to reinforce this naturalgreenhouse effect in a poten-tially dangerous way. The mainculprit is the CO2 generated bythe burning of fossil fuels (oil,coal and natural gas). The av-erage concentration of CO2 inthe atmosphere is forecast todouble in the course of thenext century. If this were tooccur, a temperature rise ofaround 2.5 degrees would beexperienced over the nexthundred years, compared toonly half a degree during thelast hundred.

What are the effects?The repercussions of globalwarming are still difficult to pre-dict, but current evidence sug-gests that it might have an im-mense impact on sea level, thenatural variability of the climateand rainfall patterns (more se-vere droughts and flooding),which would pose a grave

threat to agriculture, forestryand ecosystem functionalities.

Reducing the harmScientists calculate that if theterrestrial ecosystem is to beable to adapt to these variationsin climate, temperatures cannotrise by more than 0.1 degreesand the sea level by more than2 cm in the space of any ten-year period. To stay withinthese limits, however, worldemissions of greenhouse gaseswould have to be slashed by60% overnight!

It is clearly impossible toachieve this objective, but thatin no way reduces the need forus to act quickly. Not least be-cause greenhouse gases remainin the atmosphere for a consid-erable time, which means theywill continue to have an effect,even after they cease to beemitted.

he average temperature on the earth’s surface re-mained relatively stable for 10,000 years. In the lasthundred years, however, human activities have beengenerating steadily growing amounts of what wenow know as ‘greenhouse gases’. These have alteredthe composition of the atmosphere and have raisedthe average temperature on the surface of the earth.Though difficult to forecast with any precision, thepotential consequences of this are alarming as theyinclude phenomena such as changes in rainfall pat-terns and the level of the oceans.

TFacts and Trends

Things are hotting up

The average concentration of CO2 inthe atmosphere continues to rise.(Cellulose factory – Virton, Belgium)

CLIMATE CHANGE

ORIGIN

Energy consumption (80%), deforestation (17%)

Energy production and consumption (26%),

fermentation (24%), paddy-fields (17%)

Industry (100%)

Fertilisers (48%), land clearance (17%)

GAS

CO2

(carbon dioxide)

CH4

(methane)

CFC & HCFC

N2O (nitrous oxide)

CONTRIBUTIONTO GREENHOUSE

EFFECT

51%

34%

12%

4%

60

The energy sector contributesthe most to global warming. Asthe producer of 80% of CO2

emissions and 26% of methaneemissions, it has inevitably beenthe primary target for the rangeof European regulations intro-duced in this field in recentyears.

• 1992 — Europe signs up forRio.The UN Earth Summit at Riode Janeiro produced the firstinternational agreement inthe field of climate change.More than 150 countriessigned up to a frameworkconvention obliging them totake control of their green-house gas emissions. Morespecifically, Europe, togetherwith other developed coun-tries, undertook at Rio tostabilise emissions at their1990 level by the year 2000.

• 1995, more conferences. Eu-rope asserts itself.All the countries that signedup to the Convention cometogether at regular intervalsto evaluate progress, rede-fine their commitments, setnew objectives for the yearsbeyond 2000 and adopt newpolicies to help them achievethese objectives. The firstsignatories’ conference tookplace in Berlin in 1995 andthe second in Geneva in1996. On each occasion, Eu-rope showed a determina-tion to redouble its efforts,despite the rather unsatisfac-tory results achieved so far.In concrete terms, it has pro-posed the following actions:

• More generalised use of re-newable energy.

• Changing patterns of trans-port use.

• Increasing energy taxes.• Improving the fuel-efficiency

of cars.• Promoting research into

new technology.• Strengthening cooperation

with other countries.

• 1997, Kyoto.Third conference of signato-ries to the International Con-vention on climate changesigned at Rio in 1992 by over150 states. For its part, Europedecided in March 1997 to re-duce its emissions of green-house gases by 15% of 1990levels by 2010. The challenge itfaces at Kyoto is to persuadeother states outside the EU toadopt a similar commitment.

Energy taxes and carbon taxes: the best way forward

The purpose of taxing CO2

emissions is to encourage theuse of less polluting fuels and topromote more rational energyuse. Analysts calculate that onlyby introducing such a tax willwe be able to achieve the ob-jectives to which Europe iscommitted. The tax would ap-ply to varying degrees to oil,coal, natural gas and electricity,with scope for exempting cer-tain industries (steel, chemicals,cement and paper).This project has not receivedmaximum support in the Mem-ber States. The debate goes on.

Five programmes to save energy

A variety of programmes havebeen set up since the begin-

The battle against climate change is one of the key ecologi-cal challenges facing European policy, which has establishedtargets for significant reductions in greenhouse gas emis-sions. These are proving difficult to meet, however, partic-ularly because of the growth of road traffic and the slowprogress being made by some Member States.

Europe in action

An immense challenge

Drought has always been one of thebiggest problems in agriculture.

CLIMATE CHANGE

61

ning of the 1990s to reduceEurope ’s energy consump-tion. Within this overall objec-tive, they set out to developand promote:• Thermal insulation of build-

ings and the inspection ofcentral-heating boilers.

• Use of renewable energy(wind, wave and biomasspower).

• Special labels for freezers,refrigerators, washing ma-chines and tumble-dryersthat use less energy.

What results?Various studies have attempt-ed to calculate whether Eu-rope ’s targets for the year2000 will be met or not. Fore-casts vary widely, but Europeappears to be making generalprogress towards its goals,even if it might not meet themin full. A number of factorshave encouraged this trend,the most important beingweaker than anticipated eco-nomic growth

• National programmes to reduce CO2 emis-sions.

• Evaluation and restriction of these emissions byMember States.

• Improved energy-efficiency of certain appli-ances.

• Restrictions on use of fossil fuels.• Development of renewable energy.• Increasing road traffic.• Energy prices do little to discourage consump-

tion.• Growing use of non-renewable energy sources;• Delays in the application of national and Euro-

pean programmes.• Lack of enthusiasm on the part of certain coun-

tries (developing nations, for instance).


After a period of steady growth, CO2 emissions fell between 1990 and 1993, partly because of the recession. Since then, emissionshave started to climb again. Whether or not we can succeed in stabilising emissions will depend on a number of positive and negativedevelopments.

CLIMATE CHANGE

62

Balance needed at

international levelTackling climate change in aneffective manner will require ahigh level of international co-operation. Three quarters ofgreenhouse gas emissions arecurrently generated by onequarter of the world’s popula-tion (US, Europe and Japan).Steady economic develop-ment means, however, thatcountries like India and Chinacould substantially increasetheir emissions of greenhousegases. For that reason, wehave to find a balance at globallevel that will share the neces-sary effort fairly between thecountries, depending on eachone’s relative needs and theirresponsibility for the problem.

Some European countries

more resolute than others

Following the ratification ofthe framework convention oncl imate change, each EUMember State drafted its tar-get for reducing greenhousegas emissions, the methods tobe adopted and an action plan.Some states adopted targetsmore ambitious than thosefixed by Europe, but othersasked for more time in whichto meet even the EU goals.The progress achieved by thedifferent countries is evaluatedevery year by the Commis-sion.

What’s more, the EuropeanUnion has stated that it isprepared to reduce green-house gas emissions to 85%of their 1990 level by the year2010.

Don’t change the climate,

change attitudesCitizens can help resist climatechange. Household energy-savings have so far beenmarginal, but there are a num-ber of ways in which peoplecan contribute:

• By using electricity and heat-ing more sensibly.

• Reducing individual trans-port.

• Choosing domestic appli-ances carefully (looking forthe energy label).

• Improving thermal insula-tion;

• Choosing gas central heatingrather than oil.

• Using renewable energy.

Business remainsreluctant

Energy-conservat ion pro-grammes (THERMIE, SAVE,JOULE) and environmentalmanagement systems (EMAS)have encouraged some actionin the industrial sector, but agreat deal more progress isrequired than has beenachieved to date. Industry willno doubt be more inclined toadopt energy-efficient tech-nologies when doing so beginsto have a beneficial impact onprofits (i.e. when the price ofenergy starts to rise). Mean-while, industry is fighting tokeep energy costs as low aspossible, citing the danger oflost competitiveness in worldmarkets.


Current contributions of the differentgreenhouse gases to the enhancedgreenhouse effect.

(Factories in Great Britain)

CLIMATE CHANGE

63

Turning back the tideIt was back in 1970 that scien-tists first predicted that theozone layer was thinning. Fif-teen years later, an actual holewas detected above theAntarctic. The damage hasbeen done by a range of hu-man-manufactured chemicals,especial ly gases containingchlorine or bromine atoms. Itcan take these atoms ten yearsto find their way into the upperatmosphere, but once there,they spend many more yearsreacting with and destroyingthousands of ozone molecules.It only takes small amounts ofgas to produce this delayed ef-fect. Even if CFC and halonemissions had stopped com-pletely in 1995, damage to theozone layer would have con-tinued until 2050. Every five-year delay in the total elimina-tion of these substances addsanother eighteen years to theongoing destruction of theozone layer, making rapid pre-ventative measures more vitalthan ever.

UV, people and natureAs the ozone layer grows thinner,the amount of ultraviolet B (UV-B)radiation getting through to theearth’s surface increases. UV-Bcreates a whole range of hazards. Itaffects the health of humans, ani-mals, plants, micro-organisms,construction materials and air qual-ity. Cataracts, skin cancer, geneticdamage and a weakened immunesystem are just part of the price wepay for damaging the ozone layer.Apart from this direct threat to hu-manity, there are other less obviousdangers. Increased UV-B radiationcan, for instance, seriously damageaquatic ecosystems. Phytoplank-ton is the main source of oxygen inthe biosphere, making it a key ele-ment in climate regulation. It, too, issensitive to UV-B. Scientists havecalculated that a 16% reduction inthe level of ozone would result in a5% loss of phytoplankton, whichwould lead in turn to an annual lossof around seven million tons of fish.This would be nothing short ofcatastrophic, as at least 30 % of allanimal proteins consumed by hu-man beings come from the sea.

The two faces of ozoneThe ozone layer is a kind ofgaseous veil around the earthwith a very low density. Ozonemolecules are made up of threeoxygen atoms (O3) and mainlyform in the stratosphere, 10 to50 kilometres above the earth’ssurface. The ‘layer’ is at its mostdense at a height of around 25kilometres. If it were subject tothe same pressure that we findat ground level, the ozone layerwould be barely three millime-tres thick. Ozone moleculesperform the vital task of absorb-ing the short-wavelength ultravi-olet rays given off by the sun. Inthis way, the ozone layer pro-tects the biosphere’s inhabitantsfrom skin cancer, blindness andgenetic damage. Paradoxically,while ozone in the upper atmo-sphere forms a protective layer,the oxidising effects of the samegas at ground level are deadly tovegetation, construction materi-als and above all human health.

he ozone layer is a vital protective shield located be-tween 10 and 50 km above the earth’s surface. Itsmost important function, as far as terrestrial life isconcerned, is to filter out harmful UV rays containedin sunlight. The gradual formation of the ozone layerenabled life on earth to evolve in the first place, so it’snot hard to imagine how disastrous it would be forboth humanity and all the planet’s ecosystems if ourprotective shield were to be seriously damaged.T

Facts and Trends

Sunstroke on a global scaleWhich substances areresponsible and what

are they used for?The six substances that do themost harm to the ozone layerare listed below, along withtheir uses:• freons or CFCs

(chlorofluorocarbons)— aerosols— refrigerators— air-conditioning— plastic foam— solvents, detergents

• HCFCs(hydrochlorofluorocarbons)— temporary replacement

for CFCs, less harmfulto the ozone layer

• halons or bromofluorocar-bons— fire-extinguishers

• carbon tetrachloride— solvent

• 1, 1, 1-trichlorethane— solvent

• methyl bromide— agricultural pesticides

The ozone layer protects the earth againstultra violet radiations, but it has a tenden-cy to decrease. We are risking our skin!(Beach in Spain)

OZONE LAYER

64

The international commu-nity swung into action in1985 in an attempt to haltthe depletion of the ozonelayer. In each revision ofthe original 1987 MontrealProtocol, targets have be-come stricter and dead-lines shorter. Europe hasnow virtually stopped con-suming CFCs. But the bat-tle has still not been won.

What’s Europe doing?International negotiations havebeen going on since 1985 to dealwith the threat posed by damageto the ozone layer. Europe hasbeen at the forefront of this pro-cess, which is only fair given ourown significant contribution tothe problem. The EuropeanCommunity accounted for 21%of global CFC consumption (and35% of consumption by the de-veloped countries) in 1992.These figures relate to consump-tion rather than emissions, but‘consumed’ CFCs will more thanlikely find their way into the at-mosphere once the devices con-taining them have been used ordestroyed. A tough policybacked up by strenuous efforthas led to a considerable reduc-tion in emissions of these sub-stances. Europe is also leading in-ternational calls for tightercontrols on HCFCs and playedan important role in agreeing the2005 phaseout of methyl bro-mide in developed countries un-der the Montreal Protocol.

CFCs outlawedThe 1987 Montreal Protocol setout a precise timetable for pro-gressively scaling back the pro-duction and consumption ofCFCs and halons. Although scien-tists were still not absolutely cer-tain about the mechanisms andconsequences of ozone deple-tion, the industrialised nations de-

Europe in actionInternational mobilisation

The scientific community has been mobilized to understand the development of theozone layer better.(Ozone measurement)

Per

cent

devi

atio

n

Europe

10

5

0

–5

–10

–15

Percentage change in total ozone averaged over 60°S to 60°NChange in ozone ( %)Effects associated with the seasonal cycle (1 year), solar cycle(12 years) and the quasi-biennial oscillation (2 years) have beenfiltered out. The decrease in 1992-1993 is caused by the erup-tion of Mt. Pinatubo in 1991.

OZONE LAYER

65

cided to err on the side of caution.The Montreal Protocol was thefirst international environmentaltreaty with a preventative charac-ter and based on the precaution-ary principle. After it was signed,however, new scientific evidenceemerged, indicating that the mea-sures adopted would not beenough. Consequently, the Pro-tocol has been fundamentally re-vised on three occasions in 1990,1992 and 1995.

Watching the skiesA great many questions still haveto be answered concerning thedepletion and future recovery ofthe ozone layer and the reper-cussions for the earth’s ecosys-tems. The European Commis-sion’s Environment and Climateprogramme is putting €16 millioninto the THESEO (Third Euro-pean Stratospheric Experimenton Ozone) 1998/99. THESEO isan ambitious coordinated cam-paign to study the ozone layer

over Europe and is the world’smost important ozone researchprogramme, currently employing400 scientists in 20 countries.

• Use of CFCs and halons banned except for a smallnumber of essential and critical uses (asthma inhalers,aircraft fire extinguishers)

• Phaseout dates and use restrictions agreed forHCFCs and methyl bromide

• Rapidly increasing availability of alternative, ozone-friendly technologies in virtually all user sectors

• Industry has invested heavily to phase out ozone-depleting substances

• Atmospheric concentrations of some ozone-deplet-ing substances have started to decrease

• Costs for phase-out of CFCs are still a major barri-er, especially in developing countries

• Some countries are in non-compliance with theMontreal Protocol’s control measures

• Evidence of illegal imports of CFCs and halons inEurope and the USA


The melting of the polar ices is a worry-ing sign for climatologists.(Iceberg, Greenland)

OZONE LAYER

66

The European Commission

acting at all levelsThe EU uses the laws and regu-lations at its disposal to promotethe steady reduction of sub-stances harmful to the ozone lay-er. Its main tasks are as follows:• limiting the amount of these

substances that Europeancompanies are allowed toimport;

• promoting the phase-out ofproduction and consumptionof ozone-depleting substances;

• requiring industry and MemberStates to supply the informa-tion it needs to fulfil its duties.

Towards the end of 1996, forinstance, the Commission ap-proved the launch of an eco-la-bel for domestic refrigeratorsthat do not contain ozone-harming substances and do notcontribute to global warming.In 1998 the Commission pub-lished the Community’s strate-gy for the phase-out of CFCs inasthma inhalers.

International technology transfers

Huge sums have already beencommitted for investment in

new technologies to helpachieve concrete results atglobal level. It is every bit as im-portant, however, that less de-veloped countries also haverapid access to technologiesand products that do not harmour precious ozone layer. Thefuture of the stratosphere willdepend to a large extent on thewillingness of Europe and theother industrialised countries toput a stop to the productionand sale of these substances be-yond their own borders and toprovide access to new tech-nologies.

The ozone layer will continueto deteriorate until well into thenext century, and possibly be-yond if the signatories to theMontreal Protocol do not applythe measures they have signedup to. There is an urgent needto restrict the damage as muchas possible. Only a few solu-tions are available, the most re-alistic of which is to introducemeasures as quickly as possibleto restrict the use of substancesthat harm the ozone layer, suchas HCFCs and methyl bromide.The European Union continuesto show the way as far asHCFCs are concerned and isactively involved with othercountries to achieve the phase-out of methyl bromide in devel-oped countries by 2005.

Why not stop sooner?European Member States haveintroduced domestic legislationwhich goes further than theMontreal Protocol and itsamendments. Some have de-cided to ban the substances inquestion more quickly than Eu-rope requires:• The Swedish government

ordered a total ban onHCFCs in new equipment by1998.

• CFC and halon productionhad virtually ceased in Ger-many by 1993 instead of1995.

• Halons were banned in Fin-land, the Netherlands andthe UK in 1993 rather than1994.

• Methyl bromide was bannedfor soil fumigation in theNetherlands in 1991.

Take care especially behind the wheel!

The average European citizenused nearly a kilo of CFCs in1986. How can we cut down?Aerosols hardly contain anyCFCs these days, as they havebeen replaced by hydrocar-bons. In foam insulation, CFCshave been replaced byHCFCs, which still harm theozone layer but to a lesser ex-tent. Another problem iscaused by the disposal of oldrefrigerators which still con-tain CFCs. If this is done with-out special precautions, theCFCs can escape and attackthe ozone layer. Ideally, oldfridges should be dealt with byrecycling centres — some-thing that’s beginning to hap-pen in some countries. Air-condit ioning systems alsocontain CFCs and HCFCs andsteps have to be taken to stopthem escaping into the atmo-sphere, especially during ser-vicing and road accidents. Yetanother reason for drivingmore carefully!

Verify the harmlessness of the pro-pelled gases before buying the product.(Use of lac)


OZONE LAYER

67

Nature under threatIt seemed at first that acid rainwas less harmful to aquaticecosystems than to those onland. Only now, however, isthe impact of acidif icationmaking itself felt in certain re-gions of Europe. Acid condi-tions mean that heavy metalscan dissolve more easily, andso acid rain has the devastat-ing side effect of increasingthe concentration of thesemetals in water. Freshwaterfish have been poisoned on ahuge scale by dissolved alu-minium from the soil flowinginto lakes and rivers. Count-less aquatic biotopes havebeen severely damaged inScandinavia, and thousands of

hectares of forest in Scandi-navia and Central Europe havealso been acutely affected. In1992, one tree out of everyfour in Europe was found tobe losing its leaves at a rate ofmore than 25%, and 10% ofthem were discoloured. Al-though acid rain is not the onlycause of these problems (theimpress ion g iven in the1980s), it is still the primaryculprit. When we considerthat a third of Europe’s landarea is covered in woodlandand that forestry employs asmany people as the car orchemical industry, it quicklybecomes clear that damage toour trees is an economic is-sue, too.

Disfiguring monumentsAcid rain can harm a wide vari-ety of materials, includingstone, cement, paint, varnish,paper and textiles. That meansit is slowly but surely damagingEurope’s architectural heritage.And that’s not all. Apart fromacidification, sulphur dioxide,nitrogen oxides and ammoniaalso contribute to:

• global warming,• ozone depletion,• deteriorating air quality,• eutrophication of surface wa-

ters and aquatic and terrestrialecosystems.

What’s to blame?The most important sourcesof acidification are power sta-tions, which were responsiblefor 64% of sulphur dioxideemissions in 1990, and roadtransport, which accountedfor 50% of nitrogen oxideemissions in 1995 — a figurethat continues to rise. Otherculprits are industry, waste-processing plants, domesticheating, air transport (fore-cast to double between 1995and 2000) and the ammoniaproduced by excessive fertilis-er use and animal dung.

lthough we have been hearing about acid rain forover twenty years now, it remains a serious prob-lem. It all starts when gases like sulphur dioxide(SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOX) and ammonia (NH3)combine with water molecules in the air to formacids. When it rains, these acids enter our soil andwater, changing their composition and threateningplants and animals with extinction. Most of thegases responsible for acidification are produced bypower stations, manufacturing industry, roadtransport and intensive agriculture.A

Facts and Trends

It’s raining again...

Sulphur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOX) combine with water molecules in the atmosphere to form sulphuric and nitric acid.When these acids are deposited on the earth’s surface, they change the composition of the surface waters and soil, seriously affect-ing the existing ecosystems. Ammonia (NH3) is transformed into nitric acid in the soil rather than in the atmosphere.

NOX SO2

AIR HUMIDITY (H2O)

POWER STATION CARS PLANTS HEATING SYSTEM AGRICULTUREFERTILIZERS

FORESTS, RIVERS AND FIELDS

SO2 NOX+ += =SULPHUR DIOXIDE AZOTE OXYDE

NH3 HN03AMMONIAC VAPOUR NITRIC ACIDE

H2SO4 HNO3SULPHURIC ACIDE NITRIC ACIDE

H2O H2O

NH3

ACIDIFICATION

68

The ultimate goal for the Com-munity in respect of acidifica-tion, as expressed in the Euro-pean Community programmeof policy and action in relationto the environment and sustain-able development (the Fifth En-vironmental Action Pro-gramme), is no exceedance ofcritical loads and levels.

During 1997 the Commissionproposed an EU strategy forcombating acidification. The in-terim target in the EU Acidifica-tion strategy is to reduce in theyear 2010 the area of ecosystemsnot protected against acidifica-tion everywhere in the Commu-

nity by at least 50 percent com-pared to 1990. The central partof the strategy contains a propos-al on a national emission ceilingsdirective. The methodology tobe used to establish nationalemission ceilings shall, as was de-scribed in the strategy, reflectboth the polluter-pays principleand maximise the environmentalbenefits of emission reductions.The council has in it’s conclusionson the acidification strategy sup-ported the method and the ambi-tion level in the strategy and theCommission is now working onthe proposal for a national emis-sion ceilings directive to be pre-sented in the beginning of 1999.

Europe has built-up a whole arse-nal of legislative measures and hassigned numerous internationalagreements over the past twentyyears in its attempts to win thebattle against acidification.

• The 1979 Geneva conven-tion on long-range trans-boundary air pollution led totargets for reducing nitrogenoxide (NOX) emissions. Afirst protocol was adoptedfor sulphur dioxide (SO2) in1985 and a second in 1994.

• The EC Directive on air pol-lution from industrial plantsintroduced a series of mea-sures aimed at the energy,metal, chemical, wood pulpand waste-processing indus-tries. The most recent ver-sion of the Integrated Pollu-tion Control Directive, orIPC Directive as it is known,

Europe is trying to halt the acidification process by estab-lishing maximum rates or ‘critical loads’ for acidifying sub-stances (primarily SO2, NOX and NH3) throughout its terri-tory. Although significant progress has been made — inspite of limited resources — the target is unlikely to bemet. Critical loads will be exceeded in many regions in 2005and 2010 unless further action is taken very quickly.

Europe in action

Mobilisation

Acidifying substances can travel thousandsof kilometres in the atmosphere beforethey are finally deposited on the ground.That means some regions are sufferingfrom other countries’ emissions.

ACIDIFICATION

69

adopts a fresh, integrated ap-proach to tackling pollution,based on the use of the bestavailable technology.

• The EC Directive on air pol-lution from large combustionplants is aimed primarily atpower stations. The latestrevised version will furthertighten emission standardsfor SO2 and NOX.

• Several Directives on munic-ipal and hazardous waste in-cineration have imposedemission limits for installa-tions of this kind.

• The EC Directive on the sul-phur content of certain liquidfuels fixes maximum sulphurlevels for diesel. Similar mea-sures exist or are planned for allfuel used in the transport sector(land, sea and air) and in heat-ing and energy generation.

• The ‘Auto Oil’ programme,presented by the EuropeanCommission in 1996, setsout new, stricter standardsfor private cars (catalyticconverters and more fre-quent inspections) and forfuel quality. The programmewas developed in collabora-tion with car manufacturersand the oil industry.

• Europe has also adopted thefollowing targets for the year2000 as part of its Fifth Envi-ronmental Action Pro-gramme (5EAP):SO2: 35% reduction com-pared to 1985 emission levelsNOX: 30% reduction com-pared to 1990 emission levelsNH3: targets vary from stateto state, depending on theextent of the problem.Longer-term targets will beset shortly for the years 2005and 2010.

Varying resultsAll Member States easily met the1994 target of reducing sulphuremissions by 35%. The outlookis equally good for the year 2000,by which time a 50% reduction isto be achieved compared to1985 levels. The rapid declinewas due mainly to progress in thefield of electricity generation. In-

creasing use of gas, lower sulphurcontent of fuel and new tax mea-sures (differential fuel taxes basedon sulphur content) have alsomade a positive contribution.

The situation for NOX emissions,however, is much more worrying.We are nowhere near achievingthe target of a 30% reduction bythe year 2000. Private car use androad transport of goods are themain culprits, despite the intro-duction of catalytic converters.Steady growth in these areas hasso far cancelled out the improve-ments achieved by the powergenerators and by industry.

And little has yet been done totackle NH3 emissions. Severalcountries have completed an as-sessment of the current situation,but so far none of them have seteffective limits. Despite a consid-erable reduction in acid emis-sions, the available data suggeststhat most of the targets set by theFifth Environmental Action Pro-gramme will not be met unlessadditional measures are taken.

• Catalytic converters.• Road traffic restrictions.• Reduction in the sulphur content of fuels.• Progressive replacement of fuel oil with natural gas.• Reduction in emissions from power stations and

industry.• Increasing transport of people.• Increasing transport of goods.• Poor performance of catalytic converters (es-

pecially when cold).• Slow upgrading of car fleet (maximum 10 % a

year).• Lack of new technology.• Biofuels not competitively priced.

Developments

The predicted rain, will it be acid rain?(Southern France)

The Good... ...the Bad

ACIDIFICATION

70

Role of Member StatesMember States have a crucialpart to play in ensuring that thecritical loads set for acidifyingsubstances are not exceeded.New measures will be neededto reduce emissions; especiallythose produced by manufactur-ing industry, power generation,agriculture and, above all, trans-port. The most signif icantprogress in the coming years islikely to be made in Denmark,Germany and the Netherlands.So far, however, acid rain hasbarely affected the southernstates (particularly Portugal andGreece) and so emissions ofsulphur dioxide, nitrogen ox-ides and ammonia are all likelyto continue rising in these coun-tries for several more years.

Transportin the spotlight

The outlook is most negativein the f ie ld o f t ransport ,which cont inues to growsteadily. It is basically up to

individual Member States todecide whether or not theproblem is to be tackled ef-fectively. Alternatives do ex-ist. Emissions from cars, forexample, can be reduced bypromoting public transportand developing electric vehi-cles (provided that electricitygeneration is also subject tostr ict pol lut ion controls) .Preference should also begiven to transport by rail orwaterway rather than byroad.

The fossil fuel burned by air-craft introduces significantquantities of nitrogen oxidesand sulphur dioxide into theupper atmosphere. This is across-border problem thatneeds to be tackled at inter-national level. Europe can im-pose maximum emission lim-its on aircraft, but fuel qualitystandards are set by the In-ternational Air Transport As-sociation (IATA). The samegoes for maritime transport,where fuel quality is fixed andpoliced by the InternationalMaritime Organisation

Better managementof other

human activitiesCars, air travel, heating, inten-sive agriculture and manufac-turing all inevitably contributeto the acidification of the en-vironment. European Direc-tives and other administrativemeasures are intended to in-fluence citizens’ choices andto improve the environmentalperformance of European in-dustry. They are also designedto encourage significant be-havioural changes, includingthe more rational use of ener-gy, production capacity andtransport, and a more sustain-able approach to agriculturalproduction. For their part,citizens have to be persuadedby tax incentives and betterinfrastructure to use publictransport, to cycle and to re-discover the simple pleasureof walking.


Public transport contributes to a de-crease in traffic and therefore pollution.(Metro – Brussels, Belgium)

ACIDIFICATION

71

What do we mean by‘air quality’?

Human beings need goodquality air twenty-four hours aday in order to survive. In themodern world, however, eco-nomic activity, the burning offossil fuels, waste incinerationand intensive agriculture aregenerating ever-increasingamounts of pollution that dam-age not only our own health,but also that of plants, animalsand habitats. It is even bringingabout changes in the earth’s cli-mate. Our cities are threatenedby low altitude smog, caused bya mixture of human activity(pollution) and natural factors(climatic and geographical con-

ditions). Far from being a strict-ly local problem, half of all thepollutants in the air were origi-nally produced a considerabledistance away.

SummerWhen the sun shines, the gas-es given off by car exhausts(NOX and VOCs) combine toform ozone. Although theearth needs ozone in the up-per atmosphere, the effects ofthe gas at low altitude are veryharmful. The ozone concen-trations experienced duringsummer smog often exceedthe limits set by the WorldHealth Organisation (WHO),damaging the health of over100 million Europeans.

...and winter alikeWinter smog, meanwhile, iscreated when pollutants aretrapped by the mass of coldair above our cities, causingthem to build up (especiallySO2, NOX and particles). Theworst pollution tends to oc-cur in the urban environment,where two thirds of Europe’speople live. The WHO’s airquality guidelines are brokenat least once a year in threequarters of Europe ’s b igcities. The primary culprit isthe steady growth of car traf-fic.

t is a common misconception that air pollution simply disperses over time into the vast-ness of the atmosphere. Sadly, that is not the case. Some pollutants are trapped at lowaltitude and end up being deposited on the ground. Road traffic, the burning of fossilfuel and industrial activity all create air pollution that has a serious impact on our citi-zens’ health and harms Europe’s ecosystems. Surprisingly, all this damage is inflicted bysubstances that make up only 0.1 % of the total atmosphere — pollution is actually theresult of tiny local shifts in the concentration of gases. Although some improvement hasbeen achieved, an immense amount still remains to be done.

IFacts and Trends

Reach for your gas-masks!

Air pollution is sometimes visible to thenaked eye but not all the time.(Traffic on the Brussels Ring, Belgium)

AIR QUALITY

72

Coherent approach to-wards air pollution

Air pollution has been oneof Europe’s main politicalconcerns since the late1970s. A series of Direc-tives has been introducedto cut emissions of certainpollutants and to monitortheir concentrations in theair. The thinking behindthem has, however, beeninconsistent and they havenot been applied withequal vigour in all MemberStates. The most recentregulations are designed totackle the problem of airpollution more coherentlyand effectively.

What is Europe doing?In proportion to its size andpopulation, Europe is one of theworst offenders when it comesto air pollution and climatechange. The Commission hasalready launched a number ofinitiatives to correct this situa-tion, focusing particularly on thefollowing areas:• protecting the ozone layer

(by CFC reduction)• reducing emissions of acidify-

ing substances (SO2 and NOX)• resisting climate change and

reducing emissions of green-house gases (CO2, CH4 andN2O)

• reducing the concentrationof lead, asbestos, VOCs andozone in the atmosphere.

A great deal of progress has al-ready been made in tacklingcertain pollutants (SO2, lead andCFCs).

New frameworkdirective

Europe has decided that it canonly guarantee equal protectionfor all its citizens if the monitor-

ing and management of air qual-ity is harmonised throughout itsterritory. It has therefore draft-ed a new framework directive,which sets out a common strat-egy towards air quality, leavingit up to individual MemberStates to decide what specificmeasures they need to take.In addition to protecting publichealth and safeguarding ecosys-tems, the directive has threemain aims:

1. To ensure the uniform evalu-ation of air quality.

2. To establish limits and warn-ing thresholds for thirteenhazardous substances.

3. To tell the public which areassuffer from high air pollutionand to notify them whensafety l imits have beenbreached.

Cleaner road vehicles.A whole series of Directives hasbeen aimed at motor vehicleemissions, as a result of whichour cars, trucks and buses arealready significantly cleanerthan they used to be. Despitethis progress, Europe’s roads

Europe in action

PollutantPrincipal origin(1990 figures) Dangers

Ozone (O3)• formed from NOX and

VOC by the action ofsunlight

• nose and throat irritations • headaches• pulmonary damage

Fine particlesand heavy metals

• industrial emissionsand exhaust gases

• irritation and damage of respiratory functions• occasional mutagenic and carcinogenic properties

Volatile organiccompounds(VOC)

• road transport(36%)

• use (25%)

• wide-ranging impact, from olfactory complaintsto mutagenic and carcinogenic effects (benzene)

Carbon monox-ide (CO)

• road transport(65%) • affects tissue oxygenation

Nitrogen oxides(NOX)

• road transport (51%)• respiratory effects• inhibits plant growth• acid rain

Sulphur dioxide(SO2)

• burning of fossil fuels(66%)

• exacerbates respiratory pathology• acid rain

Dioxins • waste incineration• combustion plants

• probably carcinogenic.• probably attacks immune system and alters con-

centration of reproductive hormones.

Origin and dangers of the main air pollutants

The subject matter of the awarenesscampaigns is to familiarize the citizen tothe concept of clean cars and simultane-ously promote public transport.(Natural gas bus – Brussels, Belgium)

AIR QUALITY

73

remain a steadily worseningsource of pollution as traffic vol-umes continue to rise. It is hardto predict future develop-ments, but there is little to sug-gest that the problem will di-minish in the next few years.The implementation of the nowadopted ‘Auto Oil’ programmewill depend on the zeal withwhich Member States apply Eu-ropean regulations.The latter focus on the follow-ing areas:• fuel quality (lead and sulphur

content),• cleaner exhaust gases (cat-

alytic converters),• CO2, CO, VOC, NOX and

particle emissions,• regular vehicle inspections,• research into new forms of

propulsion and fuel.

• Improved fuel quality.• Use of catalytic converters, the performance of

which is improving.• Application of the directive on oil storage and

distribution.• Use of cleaner technologies in industry and

transport.• Application of the solvent directive (still under

discussion).• Use of water-based solvents.• Growing road traffic.• Delays in the adoption and application of direc-

tives.• Increasing solvent use by industry.


Pure air, unpolluted land: a privilege ofthe countryside?(North Yorkshire, United Kingdom)

AIR QUALITY

74

EuropeIt is all too often the case at Eu-ropean Union level that air pol-lution cannot be evaluated be-cause of a lack of reliable andcoherent data. We urgentlyneed more effective measure-ment systems to identify thesources of air pollution and itsimpact on human health. Mem-ber States wil l have to actquickly and vigorously if theyare to gather coherent, objec-tive and comparable data onNOX, VOC, dioxins and ozoneemissions.

A register for industryDirectives aimed at industrialplants have successfully re-duced emissions of certain pol-lutants in recent years. Thistrend is likely to continue withthe promotion of very strict op-erating standards and promotesthe use of the best availabletechnologies. The Commissionis also considering imposing an‘emissions register ’ whichwould oblige industry to keep adetailed record of substancesbelieved to threaten publichealth and the environment.Such a register would be partic-ularly useful when it comes to

keeping the public informed ofair quality, one of Europe’s keyrequirements in the field ofcommunication and informa-tion access.

Cleaner petrol, cleanercars

Directive 85/210 states that allcars built after 1993 must runon lead-free petrol. Each Mem-ber State is required to ensurethe availability and distributionof lead-free fuel within its terri-tory. These regulations have un-doubtedly done a great deal toreduce the health problems as-sociated with lead, but lead-free petrol is still not a perfectsolution, in that it containsmore VOCs (and hence ben-zene) which are also harmful tohuman health. German legisla-tion requires petrol storage in-stallations and service stationsto be fitted with devices to re-cover VOC fumes, which hashad the effect of reducing hy-drocarbon emissions by 13 %between 1988 and 1992. Evenbetter, the 1993 requirementthat petrol-driven vehiclesshould be fitted with three-waycatalytic converters has re-duced VOC emissions by 75 %.New technology, which re-duces converter warm-up

times, is likely to further im-prove their performance.

Cities and citizensMeasures introduced in mostEuropean cities over the pasttwenty to thirty years have ledto a reduction in emissions ofcertain pollutants. The main ad-vances have been:• the reduced sulphur content

of fuels (coal and heating oil)• increasing use of natural gas• the cleaning of industrial

emissionsOn the other hand, despite thefitting of catalytic converters, ithas so far proved impossible tocut NOX emissions because ofthe steady growth in road use.Some countries have had to re-sort to a complete ban on motorvehicles in urban areas whenev-er climatic conditions encouragethe formation of smog.European citizens can maketheir own modest contributionto reducing urban pollution byopting for public transport in-stead of their cars and bychoosing less toxic fuels likeLPG or natural gas central heat-ing.


The objective of the European pro-gramme ’Auto-Oil’ is to reduce pollutioncaused by motor vehicle emissions.

AIR QUALITY

75

WASTE

HAZARDOUS AND RADIOACTIVE WASTE

TOWNS

77

Worrying increaseAround 80% of the waste pro-duced by modern societies isagricultural, mining and indus-trial and 20% domestic. Mosthousehold waste consists ofmaterials that can be recycled(paper, metal, plastic, organicmatter) plus a few productsconsidered as ’dangerous ’(batteries, some medicines,paint, aerosols, etc.). The wor-rying increase in the volume ofhousehold waste is partly at-tributable to the flooding of themarket with products with ashort useful life and non-re-turnable packaging. Productsof this kind currently accountfor nearly 40% of all domesticrefuse.

Waste processing and its consequences

The two main ways of disposingof waste are landfilling (67% in1995) and incineration (17% in1995). Both methods have theirhealth and environmental risks.Therefore, the problem ofwaste treatment is much morecomplex and should be dealtwith by solutions ranging fromwaste separation at sourcethrough recycling, to landfillingof waste end-products. Wasteprevention must be howeverthe top priority option for anysound waste management poli-cy. This global strategy is thesubject of a specific Europeanpolicy (see the following page).

Public concern about waste

Rightly or wrongly, the choiceof a landfill site or the con-struction of an incinerator isoften objected to by the localpopulation. Citizens campaignmore and more vigorouslyagainst the building of wasteprocessing sites near theirhomes, a phenomenon some-times referred to as the ’NIM-BY’ syndrome (’not in my backyard’). Therefore transparen-cy and public information areessential conditions for publicinvolvement in decisions in thisfield.

Clean technology and eco-products

At the end of the day, theproblems caused by waste willonly be solved by preventativemeasures, which reducewaste creation by taking ac-tion at the source. New prod-ucts must be designed with av iew to reducing wastethroughout the lifecycle, fromproduction and packaging tosale, use and subsequent recy-cling.

European waste

production

Approximately 2 billion tonsof waste is generated everyyear by the European Union.Europeans generated around390 kg of domestic waste perperson per year in 1992. Thetrend i s s t i l l upward andwaste processing has becomean acute problem. A study ofsix European countries foundover 55,000 sites contaminat-ed by waste products.

aste is a by-product of our way of life in the in-dustrial countries. Its volume is growing all thetime, to say nothing of its complexity or toxici-ty. In today’s Europe, household waste is beinggenerated at a rate of over one kilogram perperson per day! The way we manage this wasteis often outdated and represents a serioushealth and environmental hazard that can onlybe reduced by drastic changes in productionmethods and consumption habits.W

Facts and Trends

Tackling the waste mountain

Source : Eurostat.

AIR• CH4 and CO2

emissions (greenhouse gases)

• Unpleasant smells

• Emits SO2, NOX,HCl, organiccompounds, diox-ins, heavy metals

WATER• Leaching of

pesticides, organic compounds, cyanide,nitrates and heavymetals into substrata

• Fallout of hazardous substances into surface water

SOIL• Use of space• Build-up of

hazardous substancesin the soil

• Dumping of incinerator ashes and smoke-cleaningresidues

WASTE

LANDFILL

INCINERATION

78

The European Communityhas been trying to reducewaste generation and toimprove its managementfor the past twenty years.Some Member States havealso had waste manage-ment policies before 1975.Action in this area has,however, proved very diffi-cult. What’s more, althoughencouraging results havebeen achieved in the recy-cling of paper and glass,waste production has con-tinued to rise steadily. Itwill increase by around30% between 1985 and2000. We are a long wayfrom meeting that goal.

StrategyEurope’s strategy has been toencourage sustainable and eco-logically sound waste manage-ment, which does not threatenpublic health or the environ-ment. Four strategic guidelineshave been defined to this end:

1. Prevention (minimisation).2. Recovery (recycling and

reuse).3. Improving disposal condi-

tions.4. Regulation of the trans-

port of waste.

ObjectivesTo put this strategy into prac-tice, the Fifth Programme for-mulated a series of concreteobjectives from which many arelegal obligations set out in Com-munity Directives:• Drawing up waste manage-

ment plans in each MemberState.

• Reducing dioxin emissions by90% between 1985 and2000.

• Stabilising waste productionat the 1985 level by the year2000.

• Recycling and reusing at least50% of paper, glass and plas-tic by the year 2000.

• Banning the export of certaincategories of waste with ef-fect from 2000.

It cannot be denied howeverthat the Community’s achieve-ments as regards these objec-tives are not satisfactory. In-deed, waste quantities, forinstance, have on average con-tinued to grow. However, as re-gards the export of waste a to-tal ban of export of hazardouswaste to non-OECD countriesentered into force on 1 January1998.

What’s Europe doing?European institutions have takena number of steps. Amongst themost important are:

• The Waste framework Di-rective (1975) which re-quires Member States totake all necessary steps to

prevent waste generation, toencourage reuse and to en-sure that waste is disposed ofin a way that does not harmhuman health or the environ-ment.

• The Directive on hazardouswaste which sets more strin-gent requirements for thehandling of this type ofwaste.

• The Regulation on the super-vision and control of trans-frontier waste shipments,which set out controls forthe shipment of waste. Thepenalties for illegal traffickingare left to Member States’responsibility.

• The Directive on packagingand packaging waste, whichsets targets for recovery andrecycling and proposes that amarking scheme for packag-ing be set up. It also pre-scribes information and edu-cation programmes to alertconsumers to the benefits ofrecyclable packaging.

Europe in action

Slow progress

Unrestricted dumping has been prohib-ited by community legislation but it isfar from being eliminated.

WASTE

79

• Community legislation alsoexist on batteries and accu-mulators, used oils, sewagesludge, PCBs and on inciner-ation of municipal waste.Proposals on waste landfill-ing, end of life vehicles andon incineration of waste arecurrently being discussed.

• Regulations on ecological la-belling to reward productswhich have a less severe en-vironmental impact duringtheir production, sale, useand disposal (’clean prod-ucts’).

ResultsAlthough considerable advanceshave been made in recent yearsin waste management legislation,the translation of Communitymeasures into national law hasbeen very slow. Consequently,the most recently adopted regu-lations will only begin to bearfruit in several years’ time.

Furthermore, in order to mea-sure such results it is vital thatEurope sets up a common pro-gramme to gather reliable andcomparable data from the re-spective Member States. Differ-ences in interpretation are cur-rently preventing a clear overallimpression of the productionand processing of waste prod-ucts across the European Union.

• Development of clean technology and eco-products.

• Encouragement of citizens to sort and recyclewaste and to choose products more carefully.

• Public opposition to landfilling.• Taxes on packaging.• Taxes on waste landfilling.• Rising production and consumption.• High cost of selective collection and sorting,

making recycling economically unattractive.• Lack of markets for certain recycled materials.• Lack of internalisation of external costs.• Complexity and diversity of the measures to be

introduced.

DevelopmentsThe Good... …the Bad

Common principles

Key principles in Europe’scommon strategy for betterwaste management are:1. The prevention principle:

we should l imit wasteproduction by taking ac-tion at the source.

2. The ’polluter pays’ princi-ple and, by the same logic,the ‘producer responsibil-ity’ principle: the cost ofdealing with waste shouldbe met by the person orbody that produced it.

3. The precautionary princi-ple: we should anticipatepotential problems.

4. The proximity principle:waste products should bedealt with as close as pos-sible to the source. (Towhich must be added the‘self-sufficiency’ principle,according to which theCommunity as a wholeand Member States indi-vidually are encouraged tobecome self-sufficient indisposing of waste pro-duced in the territory,rather than relying on theexport of waste).

Today, recycled paper attains a quality al-lowing all kinds of uses, including luxuryprinting.(Paper stockings before recycling)

WASTE

80

National plansUnder Community legislation,Member States are obliged todraw up waste managementplans for waste in general, forhazardous waste and for packag-ing and packaging waste. In addi-tion to and separate from thisplanning obligation, they are re-quired to set up separate collec-tion systems for certain batteries.

At the same time, a number ofMember States already have inplace their own systems for thecollection and recycling of cars,electronic scrap, batteries andused tyres, and many of themmake great effort to promoteclean technology in manufactur-ing processes.

Member States are now respond-ing to the pollution problemscaused by lax waste managementby drawing up integrated and sus-tainable management strategies.

In practice, the following mea-sures are promoted:• Selective refuse collection

and taxed bin bags.• Introduction of deposit sys-

tems for returnable packaging.• Promotion of clean technol-

ogy.• Involvement of industry in

the recovery and recycling oftheir used products.

• Creation of markets for re-cycled products.

Industry must actIndustry has a crucial part to playwhen it comes to reducing thevolume of waste, because it cantake action at the source — dur-ing the design and manufactureof products. Industry also has tointroduce collection and recy-cling systems for used products,as already exist in a number ofcountries for packaging, paper,batteries, tyres, used cars andtrucks and electronic equipment.

Manufacturers should also dotheir best to use as few naturalresources as possible and toproduce a minimum amount ofwaste. Big companies have be-gun to minimise waste in indus-trial processes (’internalisation’as it is called) and to pursue thegoal of ’zero waste, zero de-fect’. New cars, for instance,will soon be 100 % recyclable— a principle that should be ap-plied in other fields too.

Citizens should sort their rubbish and

become more discerning consumers

Europe’s citizens can also do agreat deal when it comes to re-ducing waste. Their purchasingbehaviour and the way they dis-pose of used products can havea very strong influence. Weshould all get into the habit of:• Sorting our refuse and taking

part in recycling and reuseprogrammes.

• Choosing durable productswith a long useful life.

• Giving preference to recy-cled and recyclable products.

• Cutting down on packagingand reusing it.

Biodegradable waste representsbetween 30 and 50% of the to-tal amount of municipal waste.Most of it is nowadays landfilledor incinerated. A valid and envi-ronmentally sound way of deal-ing with this waste is throughcomposting or bio-mechaniza-tion, either using a separate col-lection scheme or home com-posting of organic waste.In order to produce good qual-ity compost it is necessary tohave source separation of thebiodegradable waste. There-fore the cooperation of the citi-zens is extremely important.Their support to such initiativeswould make it possible for localauthorities to invest in com-posting and bio-mechanisationplants and remove biodegrad-able waste from landfills and in-cineration.


390 kg of domestic waste per person and per year.

WASTE

81

35 million tonsof hazardous waste a year

Approximately 2% of the esti-mated 2 billion tons of wastegenerated in the EuropeanUnion every year is classifiedas hazardous. Most of thiswaste has an industrial originalthough there are elementsof household waste such ascertain paints, solvents, bat-teries and oils which are haz-ardous and should be sepa-rately collected from ordinaryhousehold waste to avoidharm to the environment be-ing caused.

Industrial wasteSome industrial wastes can behazardous, which compl i -cates their disposal. Exam-ples are:

• Agricultural wastes cancontain pesticide residues.

• Sludge from dredging andpurif ication plants oftenhas high concentrations ofheavy metals and organiccompounds.

• Building wastes can containasbestos and other haz-ardous substances.

• Hospital wastes includecertain contaminated mate-rials.

Thousands of contaminated sites

More than 55,000 sites con-taminated by waste disposalhave been identified in six Eu-ropean countries alone, butthis inventory (Carrera andRobertiello, 1993) reveals theinconsistency of contaminat-ed s i te ’s def in i t ion ratherthan the ir actua l number.Nevertheless , a lmost ha l fwere found to be in a critical

s ta te , threaten ing pub l ichealth and groundwater qual-ity in the vicinity of the site.Annual clean-up costs for theEU as a whole amount to aproh ib i t ive ECU1,000,000,000,000.

Radioactive wasteEvery nuclear power stationproduces thousands of cubicmetres of radioactive waste ayear. Most of it is only slightlyradioactive, but a small pro-portion, originating from thestation core, is highly danger-ous and has to be vitrified (en-cased in a solid block) beforebeing bur ied deep in theearth’s crust. It will remainactive for centuries and thelong-term repercussions of itspresence are sti l l far fromclear. The recent case sur-rounding La Hague shows thepotentia l r isks involved intreatment of waste. The de-commissioning of obsoletenuclear plants and the trans-port of radioactive waste alsocause serious health and safe-ty problems.

ublic awareness of the risks associated with wastemanagement, particularly with hazardous waste,has risen sharply in the wake of major pollution in-cidents and proven damage to health. This in itself,however, is not enough to reverse current trends.P

Facts and Trends

A dangerous trend

Waste movements

between countries over

200 tonnes, 1990

More than 25 000 tonnes

10 000 – 25 000

5000 – 10 000

1000 – 5000

200 – 1000

No data collected

0 1000km

40° 30° 20° 10° 0° 10° 20° 30° 40° 50° 60° 70° 80°

60

50

40

40°30°20°10°0°

Every year, millions of tons of hazardouswaste are shipped across the globe, of-ten ending up in countries where dis-posal is cheapest but least secure. Thegeneral pattern is for wastes to movefrom the countries of the North tothose of the South, and from the Westto the East. Hazardous waste is alsoshipped back and forth within the Euro-pean Union because of differences intaxation, processing expertise and thelevel of official supervision in the re-spective Member States.(Based on waste export data providedby individual countries to OECD.)


82

Several pieces of legislation Sev-eral pieces of legislation havebeen introduced to deal withthe problem of hazardouswaste at European level. Themain ones include:• The hazardous waste direc-

tive which requires MemberStates to abide by certainrules for its collection, han-dling, recycling and treatment.This entails the regular inspec-tion of companies that handlehazardous waste, introducingregulations to ensure that it iscorrectly packaged and la-belled and drawing up emer-gency procedures.

• The Directive on the inciner-ation of hazardous waste,the aim of which is to limitemissions into the air andwater from hazardous wasteincinerators and from pro-duction plants like cementkilns and power plants co-in-cinerating hazardous waste.

• The regulation on the super-vision and control of ship-ments within, into and out ofthe European Communityhas the aim to minimisewaste movement. Under thisregulation, exports of haz-ardous waste, whether fordisposal or recovery, to non-OECD countries has beenprohibited since 1 January1998. The regulation en-shrines in Community lawthe Basle Convention on thecontrol of transboundary

movements of hazardouswaste and their disposal.

A matter of definitionBefore we can manage and regu-late hazardous waste move-ments more effectively, we haveto harmonise our definitions atEuropean and international level.For the purpose of Communitylaw, the term ‘waste’ has beendefined by the 1975 WasteFramework Directive, and a1994 Council Decision definedwhat is hazardous and at thesame time established the ‘Haz-ardous Waste List’.

Radioactive wasteA joint seven-year action planwas adopted in 1992 for the pe-riod 1993-99. It focuses on theproblems associated with ra-dioactive waste and encouragesMember States to cooperate inthe field of:• enhanced information for

the public;• permanent analysis of the situ-

ation (e.g. radioactivity levels);• heightened safety efforts for

the storage of radioactivewaste.

Although recycling has undoubtedly been a success, theprogress it has achieved has largely been cancelled out byrapid growth in the volume of hazardous waste. Europefaces several major challenges in this area, not least theneed to get to grips with the problems caused by haz-ardous waste. Measures have been proposed but it is like-ly to be many years before these bear fruit.

Europe in action

Sustainable waste management - an ambitious goal

The packaging of hazardous waste inmetal trunks isn’t always sufficient toavoid accidents.(Firemen’s exercise on chemical prod-ucts)


83

Meanwhile, a directive on themonitoring and regulation ofradioactive waste shipmentsdefines the procedures to befollowed during transportation.

• Selective collection and recycling programmesare enjoying growing success.

• European citizens and Member States are be-coming increasingly aware of the need to avoidwaste creation.

• Improved product design, clean technologiesand the use of less hazardous materials couldsignificantly reduce volumes of industrial andhazardous waste.

• Current trends suggest that the volume of ha-zardous waste will continue to grow between1990 and 2000.


What future does nuclear power havewhen it faces the hostility of public opinion?(Cooling-tower, nuclear power station– Doel, Belgium)


84

Reducing waste movements

at international levelAdopting international rules tolimit waste shipments is vital ifwe want to prevent the mosthazardous waste products frombeing systematically shipped tothe regions with the most laxenvironmental regimes. This is-sue was first addressed in 1989by the Basle Convention on the‘Control of TransboundaryMovement of HazardousWastes and their disposal’. The122 signatories to the conven-tion agreed that henceforth theexporter of the wastes in ques-tion was to be responsible fortheir proper treatment.

Industry – immensepotential

Experts bel ieve that haz-ardous waste and toxic emis-sions can be cut by between70 and 100% using bettertechnology and rethinkingproduct designs. Toxic com-pounds (CFC, chlorine, cer-tain solvents, heavy metals),can be removed from certainproducts without a l ter ingtheir properties

Citizens are mobilisingMajor accidents have shownall too clearly that the burial ofhazardous waste can causesignificant public health prob-lems. Landfill disposal has avery poor image in the eyes ofthe public, who are objectingever more vehemently againstthe creation of new sites. Thesame kind of opposition has

been shown towards waste-processing and incinerationplants, presenting decision-makers with serious difficul-ties.

Meanwhile, a significant sec-t ion of the populat ion hasshown a strong commitmenttowards act ively reducingwaste by carefully choosingwhich products to use in thefirst place.


No region on our planet is exempt fromwaste.(Antarctica)


85

Urban zones have a voraciousappetite, however, that is out ofall proportion to their size. Onan average day, a European citywith a million inhabitants con-sumes 320,000 tons of water,2,000 tons of food and 11,500tons of fossil fuel, while produc-ing 300,000 tons of wastewaterand 1,600 tons of solid waste. Itgoes without saying that thereare countless interactions be-tween town and environment.And the environmental prob-lems already experienced bymost European cities will getworse as their boundariescreep outwards and demandfor mobility increases, furtherintensifying our dependence onthe private car.

Blocked arteries andasphyxia

Vehicles used for road trans-port are public enemy numberone across Europe when itcomes to air pollution. GreaterLondon alone is home to sixmillion cars. Vehicles are re-sponsible for congestion, stressand safety problems and theyencroach on our public spaces.And most seriously they gener-ate severe air and noise pollu-tion.

Vehicle exhausts pump CO2

into the atmosphere, contribut-ing to global warming. Theyalso produce HC particles, COand NOX. Road vehicles are aprimary source of air pollutionin our towns, in some areas faroutstripping industry andhouseholds, where significantprogress has been achieved (es-pecially in Western Europe).Modern factories produce

more cleanly and have beenmoving towards the outskirts ofurban areas. Meanwhile, atmo-spheric emissions have been re-duced by increased use of natu-ral gas as a heating fuel.

Green spaces serve a wide vari-ety of purposes in urban areas.They are used for recreationand education and providemuch-needed visual variety.Green areas fulfil other impor-tant roles too, such as improv-ing air circulation, maintainingbiodiversity, balancing humidityand capturing dust and gases.Maintaining and developinggreen spaces in towns is a keyaspect of urban policy.

Unbearable noiseThe percentage of citizens ex-posed to unacceptable noiselevels (over 65 decibels) issteadily increasing, especially inthe cities. The figure currentlystands at 17% in the EU coun-tries. Compared to Eastern Eu-

rope, however, EU citizens getoff relatively lightly. Roughly50% of the population in theEast has to put up with this typeof excessive noise pollution.

Although aircraft noise poses aparticular problem close toairports, even in these loca-tions road traffic is the mainculprit.

Ebb and flowThe pattern of water andwaste flows clearly illustratesthe burden towns place on theenvironment. Every day,town-dwellers consume 320litres of drinking water each,even though only a tiny pro-portion (around 5%) is actual-ly drunk or used in cooking.The dilapidated state of somewater systems is also a prob-lem, resulting in regular lossesof between 30 and 50 %.Some major cities don’t havewaste water treatment plants.As for solid waste, althoughprogress has been made in theselective collection and recy-cling of refuse, the overallquantity continues to rise andthe most common form of dis-posal is still landfill.

owns are highly complex ecosystems whose environ-

mental impact on the planet is increasing all the time.

Europe has become highly urbanised in recent decades.

Two out of three Europeans now live in towns, which

account for only 1% of the continent’s surface area.TFacts and Trends

Noise and Smog

A mask for better breathing, a paradoxof our time.(Cyclist in London)

TOWNS

86

This need was reflected by the1990 Green Paper on the Ur-ban Environment. Three yearslater, the Sustainable Cities Pro-ject prepared recommenda-tions for incorporating environ-mental issues at all levels ofdecision-making (EU, MemberStates, towns, etc.) and for tak-ing them into account whenconsidering other relevantfields like demographics and theeconomy.

A 1998 communication fromthe Commission develops aframework for action aboutsustainable urban development

in the European Union. The in-terdependent aims of thisframework for action are:

• Strengthening economicprosperity and employmentin towns and cities.

• Promoting equality, social in-clusion and regeneration inurban areas.

• Protecting and improving theurban environment.

• Contributing to good urbangovernance and local em-powerment.

This complexity means thatthere can be no single solu-tion, but that each advance ina specific sector (water andair quality, for instance) helpsimprove the overall quality ofthe urban environment. Sev-eral EU policies have a directimpact in this respect by ad-dressing a range of sensitiveissues.

More than anything, improv-ing the environment requiresthe rethinking and effectiveappl icat ion of pol ic ies to-wards planning, transportand the management of natu-ra l resources . In otherwords, it is not the tools assuch that will provide the so-lution but the way they areused — the way elementscontributing to the quality ofurban life are integrated inthe decision-making process(especially in terms of plan-

Just as populations are concentrated in towns, so too areenvironmental problems. We have already seen how airquality, noise and transport are intimately linked, and thisis just one example. There are countless other connectionslike this in urban areas. For that reason, an integrated ap-proach is needed if we want to pursue an effective urbanenvironmental policy.

Europe in action

Directives and exchange of know-how

When it is possible give the streets backto the pedestrians.(Pedestrian Street – Münich, Germany)

TOWNS

87

ning). This is not somethingthat can be implemented atEU level. Policies l ike thishave to be put into practicelocally. With that in mind, theEU makes a significant con-tr ibut ion by encourag ingtowns to get together tocompare experiences and toexchange information.

The EU and noiseAs regards noise, Europeanpolicy is concerned with as-sessing ambient noise levels,as well as introducing stan-dards for vehicles, householdappl iances , tools , and soforth. In the Fifth Environ-mental Action Programmethere are also general targetsfor the reduction of noise pol-lution:

• noise levels exceeding 85 dBto be banned;

• the percentage of the popu-lation exposed to noise levelsabove 65 dB at night must bereduced.

• Municipal regulations to cut air pollution havehelped reduce emissions of harmful gases andparticles.

• Noise-reduction measures have encouragedindustry to perfect new, high-performancetechnologies, one achievement of which hasbeen to produce quieter cars.

• Information concerning the urban environmentis much more widely available to all relevantparties.

• Rising living standards and increased demandfor consumer goods and mobility are cancellingout the positive effects of anti-pollution mea-sures.

• The increasing number of cars and kilometrestravelled also tends to neutralise these effects.

• Data on the urban environment remains frag-mentary. An absence of information and differ-ences in data-collection methods are too oftenthe norm.

• The total quantity of household refuse contin-ues to rise, despite advances in separated col-lection and recycling.

• The growing demand for water places a seriousburden on water supply and replenishment.


The electric car makes a timid appearance in cities.(Reloading the battery of an electric vehicle)

TOWNS

88

All concernedThe goal of sustainable urbandevelopment is a shared one.However, many MemberStates, like the Netherlands,take the view that it is up to in-dividual towns and municipali-ties to decide how to achieve it.This shows that real opportuni-ties exist in the shape of decen-tralisation and the delegation ofresponsibility.

City networksCities are innovating and link-ing up with one another tocreate inter-urban networks.The European SustainableCities and Towns Campaign,for instance, brings togetherover 400 local authorit ieswhich have undertaken to de-velop local action plans forsustainability which will enablethe Rio commitments to bemet. The Car-Free Cities net-work has existed in Europesince 1994 and advocatesforms of mobil i ty that aremore respectful of the envi-ronment and the needs of res-idents in the part ic ipat ingtowns. It draws up examplesof good practice, such as car-sharing and car free housing.

Towns are the key players intheir own environmental poli-cy, which means that resi-

dents have to feel more in-volved, either individually orthrough committees and as-sociations.

The growing number of public-private partnerships shows themany varied forms this generalcooperation can take.

Effective town planning

It’s one thing to know the lev-el of air pollution at whichcertain people are likely toexperience breathing difficul-t ies , but quite another totransform this l imit into astandard. European townshave found it very difficult tomonitor these parameters,whether in the field of air, wa-ter, soil or noise. Taxes, tollsand permits offer partial solu-tions, but other mechanismsare needed too.

Town planning is an excellenttool for improving the urbanenvironment. The ecologicalmanagement of urban areasrequires careful attention tothe location and form of de-velopment of different typesso as to minimise the need formotorised transport and toprotect valuable natural andbuilt environments, cleaning-up dilapidated areas, pursuingan ambitious green-space po-

licy and replacing inadequateinfrastructure.

Enhanced technology and im-proved management couldstrongly reduce raw materialand waste flows. A number ofinteresting initiatives have beenmounted in certain NorthernEuropean towns. Small in scale,many of these projects set outto reduce energy bil ls andhence to protect nature by pro-moting water purification, ther-mal insulation, a range of highlysophisticated procedures andthe simple use of commonsense.

New models of transport

The planning of land use andtransport must go hand inhand. Effective bus networksalone are not enough to solvethe problems of urban mobili-ty. Solutions are needed thatoffer a variety of choices. Thekeyword is integration: creat-ing pedestrian zones, reducingthe speed of car traffic, inte-grating the different modes oftransport, developing safe andattractive cycle routes, reduc-ing the availability of parkingand developing other stimulisuch as higher taxes on lonedrivers.


Urban planning is frequently handi-capped by the weight of an anarchiclegacy.(Air pollution in Athens, Greece)

TOWNS

89

FRESHWATER

MARINE AND COASTAL WATERS

ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS

SOIL

91

Limited reserves and excessive demand

Some 65% of our water sup-plies come from deep withinthe earth. They are pumpedfrom subterranean aquiferscontaining limited reserves thatonly replenish themselves slow-ly — chiefly from rainwaterpercolating down from the sur-face. Water extraction rose byalmost 35 % between 1970 and1985 and has shown no sign ofslowing down more recently.The point has now beenreached in an increasing num-ber of regions where the natu-ral replenishment of the watersupply can no longer keep pacewith demand. Water consump-tion has risen explosively aseconomic activity has expan-

ded. Industry accounts for 53%of total demand, agriculture for26% and domestic consump-tion for 19%. Not only do thesesectors swallow up vastamounts of our water re-sources, they also generate awhole range of pollutants thatare affecting the quality of sur-face water (rivers, lakes, etc.)before filtering down into thesubstrata. Annual water con-sumption in Europe varies be-tween 200 and 1,000 cubic me-tres per head of the population,depending on the level of eco-nomic development. Incidental-ly, it is not the countries withthe most water (basically thosein the North) which consumethe most or make the least ef-fort to conserve supplies. Irriga-tion is growing constantly in thecountries of the South.

From source to ocean

Water is adversely affected by thepresence of human beings evenbefore it begins to form rivers. In-dustrial production, animal hus-bandry, arable farming, accidentaldischarges and domestic cleaningall release a range of pollutantsinto the soil, many of which grad-ually filter their way down intothe groundwater. The contami-nated water then rises and beginsits slow journey to the sea. Onthe way, it picks up untreated in-dustrial residues and waste-wa-ter containing organic matter andphosphates from built-up areas.Rainwater runs off roads andfarmland into the river, carryingwith it nitrates, pesticides, hydro-carbons, atmospheric acid de-posits and other everydayresidues. Meanwhile, certainspecies of fish are disappearingand others are being confined up-stream of dams or behind thethermal barrier created by pow-er station discharges. Many plantsare being suffocated by a lack ofoxygen, allowing others to prolif-erate in their place at the expenseof animal life. And when the riverfinally makes it to the sea, itpromptly deposits the pollutantsit has carried downstream.

Insidious threatAlthough industry is the singlegreatest source of pollution, it isnot viewed by environmental-ists as the most challenging ad-versary. After all, there are var-ious ways of encouragingindustrialists to manage theirwater resources more effec-tively. It is much more difficultto curb the thousands of mil-lions of micro-pollutants intro-duced by the spreading of fer-tiliser and manure, by pesticideand biocide use and by leaksfrom the millions of under-ground tanks used to storeheating oil.

he element of water is crucial to life on earth. Sincethe beginning of the 20th century, however, it hascome under increasing threat. In a number of coun-tries, including some in Europe, the quality and scaleof water supplies is likely to be the focus of majortension and perhaps even conflict in the decades tocome.T

Facts and Trends

A complex and fragile system

In which condition will this pure, clearwater reach the sea?(Lorraine, France)

FRESHWATER

92

Developing an inte-grated approach

The European authorities re-sponded to the alarming deter-ioration in the continent’s waterresources back in 1973, closeon the heels of internationalmobilisation to tackle the pollu-tion of the Rhine. A score of di-rectives designed to protectaquatic ecosystems have sincebeen issued, focusing on speci-fic areas like bathing water,drinking water, groundwaterand fish and shellfish water. Themain intention of these mea-sures has been to set Europeanquality standards for water in-tended for specific humanneeds. The Drinking Water Di-rective, for instance, sets limitvalues for a large number of pa-rameters, thus providing safetyfor the consumer. As forbathing water, the Directiveaims at ensuring a safe and

healthy quality of the water byprimarily setting standards forfaecal pollutants. Although theapplication of these measures inthe different Member Stateshas undoubtedly raised aware-ness and produced some valu-able initiatives, these have notbeen enough to offset thegrowing pressure exerted onwater quality by demographicdevelopment and intensifiedeconomic activity. Earlier Euro-pean strategy did not takeenough account of either the di-versity of the individual situa-tions encountered or the spe-cific priorities of the differentregions and their aquaticecosystems: precipitation,evaporation, catchement, riverregulation, effluents, etc. Whatwas needed was an integratedapproach — one of the priorityobjectives of the Fifth Pro-gramme and the EdinburghSummit in December 1992. Forthe future, preparations are un-derway for a new European

’Framework Directive’ whichrequires integrated water man-agement planning on a river-basin basis and sets commonrules to ensure comparability ofeffort and results.

The integrated ap-proach of the Frame-work Water Directive

Unlike previous water legisla-tion, the Framework WaterDirective will cover both sur-face water and groundwater,as well as estuaries and coastalwaters, in recognition of thenatural interaction betweensurface waters and groundwa-ters in terms of quality andquantity. One of the innova-tions of this directive will bethat rivers and lakes will needto be managed by river basin— the natural geographic andhydrological unit — instead ofaccording to administrative orpolitical boundaries. The riverbasin management plans willhave to include an analysis ofthe river basin’s characteris-tics, a review of the impact ofhuman activity on the ecologi-cal status of waters in the basinand an economic analysis ofwater use in the district. Cen-tral to each river basin man-agement plan will then be therequirement of each MemberState to establ ish a pro-gramme addressing al l the

The combined approachThe Framework Water Directive aims at achiev-ing ‘good status’ for all waters (groundwater andsurface water) by 2010. To that end, a combinedapproach is foreseen:• by setting emission limit values for the most

polluting discharges and other relevantsources of pollution, such as agriculture, urbandomestic waste water and industrial waste wa-ter, and

• by setting water quality standards to ensurethat those controlled discharges and other rel-evant sources of pollution will not adversely af-fect the water quality and result in a good sta-tus of the water.

FRESHWATER

he fight against water pollution was one of the veryfirst policies to be taken in hand by Europe. This ear-ly response resulted in concrete actions, which con-tinue to bear fruit today. It has also been translatedinto educational programmes designed, in the lightof earlier errors, to ensure that European action ismore effective and coherent.T

Europe in action

A global approach to theaquatic ecosystem

93

measures which need to betaken within its territory toensure that all waters in theriver basin achieve good waterstatus by 2010.

Precise targetingOther European goals in termsof water quality are set out in anumber of texts, such as:• The Drinking Water Direc-

tive sets quality standards forwater destined for humanconsumption;

• The Urban Waste-WaterTreatment Directive sets outthe minimum conditions forthe collection, treatment anddischarge of domestic efflu-ents (including comparableindustrial waste);

• The Nitrates Directive is in-tended to reduce and pre-vent pollution caused by thestorage and use of nitratefertilisers in agriculture;

• The Bathing Water Directivecombines environmental andpublic health concerns. Onthe basis of specific qualitymonitoring programmes es-tablished and carried out bythe Member States, informa-tion is given by the MemberStates and the Commissionto the public at large;

• An Action Programme for in-tegrated groundwater man-agement, currently beingprepared, will tie togetherthe basic measures enablingeach Member State to shapeits own policy, while bearingin mind the common objec-tives and the overall group ofshared ’enemies’ that threat-en the aquatic ecosystem.The action programmes arefocused on groundwater inthe countryside and thus, in

particular, affect agriculturalpractices.

The right price to re-duce consumption

Few measures at European lev-el have been specifically target-ed at reducing domestic consumption. By contrast, Europe’s support for productswith a low environmental im-

pact sets out to do just that, inthis case by awarding eco-la-bels. By clearly informing con-sumers of the ecological bene-fits (such as water-conservation)offered by certain products onthe market, the EU is givingthem a concrete way of inter-vening in the field.

Meanwhile, Member Statescould help focus attention onthe true economic value ofwater by ensuring that thetrue cost of treatment and pu-rification is reflected in its saleprice.

• Major treatment projects have already beenset up by the Member States.

• Leading industries have given the go-ahead forsubstantial investments to treat their waste-water.

• There is growing interest in integrated rivermanagement, such as river contracts and thejoint cleaning up of the Rhine.

• Considerable advances have been made in theefficiency and effectiveness of water-treatmenttechnologies.

• The policy of increasing prices and imposingtaxes is clearly helping to raise awareness.

• Farmers are gradually recognising the impact oftheir activities on water quality.

• The amount of drinking water extracted isgrowing all the time, primarily because of theirrigation needs of intensive agriculture.

• Although significant advances have been made,these are not enough to offset the increase innew sources of pollution.

• The development of new agricultural policiesand methods is likely to increase the amount ofpollution caused by fertilisers and more activepesticides (effective at weaker concentrations,but also highly toxic).


FRESHWATER

Freshwater, a treasure to safeguard.(Lake Balaton, near Czopak, Hungary)

94

Honest brokerThe pollution of our riversclearly shows that we urgentlyneed a policy capable of ad-dressing the management ofwater resources in their en-tirety. At the same time, it re-veals just how complex the is-sue can be. To tackle thiscomplexity, three sorts of ac-tion are envisaged at Europeanlevel:

• Encouraging Member Statesto take stock of the situationand to identify sources ofpollution;

• Defining concrete and realis-tic objectives in consultationwith individual states;

• Setting up integrated pro-grammes to achieve theseobjectives, in collaborationwith all relevant parties.

Shared ResponsibilityAfter adoption of legislationand action programmes on theEU level, Member States haveto transpose and implementthem correctly to achieve theenvironmental objectives. TheEU provides information toraise citizens’ awareness in en-vironmental matters and fundsto help Member States orNGO’s on specific projects. Itis this combination of differentlevels of action — legislation,implementat ion, c it izens ’awareness — that can lead toan actual improvement in wa-ter quality and sustainablemanagement of water re-sources.

Clean technology firmly established

Not only was industry the firstpolluter to be identified, itwas also the first to respondto the pressure exerted byEuropean regulations, pro-ducing a significant improve-ment in water quality as a re-

sult. Faced with ever-morerigorous standards and steadi-ly rising purification costs,companies are nowadaysturning to new productiontechniques that use less waterand are less polluting. Little bylittle, new environmental pro-duction standards l ike ISO14001 or EMAS are gainingground. The main purpose ofthese schemes is to persuadeindustry to start seeing the en-vironment as a resource thatis every bit as important aslabour or capital.

Local government - keeping the public

informedLocal authorities will be thefirst to experience the socialand economic impact of the

new policies on water. It willbe up to them to explain to cit-izens why the price of waterhad to be adjusted and why in-vestment is needed in watercollection and purification.They will also be responsiblefor local test ing. In otherwords, local government will

have to raise awareness, in-form, educate and explain insuch a way that citizens stoplooking on water simply as anatural way of transporting ef-fluent to the nearest river,which is then transformed intoa natural sewer.

More responsible farming

The intensive agriculture thathas grown up in Europe is themain source of the nitrates andpesticides that find their wayinto our groundwater and sur-face water. Consequently,farmers will have to accepttheir share of the effort need-ed to preserve our water re-sources by controlling fertilis-er use more effectively andpreferring less toxic productsand irrigation methods thatuse less water. Agriculturists inseveral countries have alreadycommitted themselves to con-crete promotion of farmingmethods that are less harmfulto the environment. These ef-forts need to be reinforcedand above all to be appliedmore widely.

Demanding consumersEvery summer, Europe’s citi-zens spray their gardens with17 cubic metres of water persquare metre. We use 200litres every time we wash ourcars and 100 litres to wash ev-ery five kilos of cloths. Every-day domestic consumptionmay be relatively modest com-pared to industrial demand(bear in mind it takes 25 litresof water to brew one litre ofbeer!), but citizens can still dotheir bit by paying more atten-tion to our water resources.We can do this by saving waterat home, buying washing-ma-chines and dishwashers thatconsume less water, choosingcleaning and washing productsthat are less polluting and canbe used in smaller quantitiesand by making better use ofrainwater.


Manshlands shelter exceptionnally wichand diverse fauna and flora.(Scenery in Iceland)

FRESHWATER

95

The 13 EU Member States withaccess to the sea share a totalcoastline of around 89,000 km.Some 68 million of Europe’s 360million people live on this nar-row strip of land, in concentra-tions varying from 3% in Bel-gium to 70% in Denmark.These figures are subject to ex-treme seasonal variations, whichis one of the factors that makethe coastal zone so sensitive.

Urbanisation, manufacturing,harbour activities, fishing, navalbases, tourism and leisure arethe primary culprits behind theaccelerating deterioration ofour coastal ecosystems — thedisappearance of undevelopedareas, declining biodiversity,water pollution, spoiled land-scapes and the infiltration ofsaltwater into overexploitedfreshwater layers.

And as if these problems weren’tenough, we also have to con-tend with the threat of a risingsea level and the marine disrup-tion caused by climate change.

More people than ever are at-tracted to the coasts for recre-ation and holidays. But coastsalso have another role as thefinal outlet for pollution, muchof it generated far inland.

Virtually all the materials car-ried in suspension by our riversand ejected into the sea are de-posited at the coast, urban andindustrial pollution or nitratesand pesticides that haveleached into the soil or the de-posit of atmospheric pollution.

The repercussions for the envi-ronment and for human healthare numerous, complex and verydifficult to evaluate in the longterm. Pollutants, for instance, of-ten re-emerge from coastal sed-iment several years later.

A precious habit beingnibbled away

The coastal zone forms an ir-replaceable breeding ground

and habitat for plants andwildlife. Eight out of every 40habitats rated as essential tosurvival and a third of all wet-lands are located on the coast.The same strip also containsbreeding and growing areasfor most of the fish and shell-fish species that end up on ourplates.

These facts illustrate the scaleof the problems sparked byhuman act iv it ies in thesecoastal regions, where entirechunks of these precious habi-tats have been sacrificed in re-cent years in the name of ur-banisation, industry, tourismand fishing.

Suffocating the seaThe most dangerous pollu-tants threatening our coasts -often worse even than heavymetals, chemicals or hydrocar-bons — are nutrients, whichcome mainly from fertilisersand urban refuse. These nutri-ents can cause excessivegrowth of plants, e.g. algae.Such masses of a lgae mayphysically leave no space forother forms of life in the wa-ter, as well as, -on their de-composition, -deplete the wa-ter of oxygen, suffocating thesurrounding ecosystem. At thesame time, they gradually de-stroy the coast’s attraction totourists.

he coastal zone is the interface between land andsea, between freshwater and saltwater. It is here,without any doubt, that human beings and theiractivities have left their most visible imprint onour planet. These effects are all the more difficultto address, because they are the end-result of ev-ery imaginable type of pollution, flowing from acountless range of outlets.T

Facts and Trends

Europe’s coast : 89,000 km of frontline

1. Overexploitation of local resources

2. Pollutant discharges3. Heat discharges4. Disturbance of the

seabed5. Disappearance

of natural habitats6. Sediment accumulation7. Organic pollution8. Unlicensed gas dis-

charges9. Solid waste dumping10. Overexploitation

of certain species

Assailed from all sides

5

2

6

1

4

9

8

7

3

10


96

Careful coordinationrequired

The greatest obstacle to protect-ing the coastal and marine envi-ronment is the huge variety ofusers and other interested par-ties at regional, national and inter-national level. Industry, property-developers, fishermen, hoteliers,tourists, local authorities, envi-ronmental groups, researchers,transport firms and sports enthu-siasts are all keen to defend theirposition on the coast. Each inter-est group is busily lobbying politi-cal decision-makers.

The result has been a multitudeof decisions and initiatives which,though sometimes highly benefi-cial in local terms, often do littlemore than shift the problem tosome other region. In some cas-es, they even create brand newproblems at the same spot.

A raft of initiativesThe EU has drawn up and ap-plied an impressive series ofmeasures since 1973.

Highlights include several in-ternational conventions suchas the Helsinki Convention onthe protection of the Balticmarine environment (1974),the Oslo (1974) and ParisConventions (1978) on theprotection of the NortheastAtlantic, the Barcelona Con-vention on the protection ofthe Mediterranean and a seriesof conferences on protectingthe North Sea. Among piecesof EU legislation related to thecoastal zones are directives onthe quality of fish and shellfishwater, the conservation ofwi ld birds, the qual i ty ofbathing water, environmentalimpact studies, the cleaning upof waste urban waters, con-servation of flora and faunaand nitrates. If we add in all thecharters, joint declarationsand recommendations, weend up with almost thirty ma-jor European initiatives thathave attempted to halt thedamage to the coastal and ma-rine environment. A greatmany financial instrumentshave also been created to sup-port these efforts.

Although the progress achievedhas failed to l ive up to theamount of energy expended,these efforts have borne fruit inseveral fields. The quality ofbathing water has improved atmany locations and the NorthSea states have cut their phos-phorus and heavy metal dis-charges by half.

At the same time, many nation-al and local programmes havesignificantly improved thecoastal and marine environ-ment and helped recreate a nat-ural habitat.

Getting the measure of the problem

It is incredibly difficult to comeup with a precise evaluation ofany improvements or setbacksin the overall health of ourcoastal and marine environ-ment. And it is just as hard toidentify the real heroes and vil-lains when it comes to local, re-gional and national manage-ment. We don’t have reliableindicators for the state of our

Europe in action

For a long time the sea has been consid-ered to be a huge dumping ground.(Europe is surrounded by nine sea basins)


97

coastal waters, making it riskyto attempt a diagnosis. One ofEurope’s main priorities is togive itself the proper tools tomeasure and evaluate its coastaland marine ecosystems.

Many instruments without an orchestra

Over the past 20 years, publicand private bodies all over Eu-rope have devoted themselvesto restoring marine and coastalecosystems. They have done soby launching specific pro-grammes and actions with con-crete, often local objectives —protecting plants and wildlife,reducing the discharge of spe-cific pollutants, raising publicawareness and drafting clearlytargeted plans.

A well-known example is the BlueFlag for the best environmentallymanaged beaches. This campaignhas ensured public awareness forenvironmental issues, and in par-ticular on the delicate ecologicalbalance of the coastal strip.

Although some good has beenachieved, we lack the necessarycoordination between thisplethora of individual initiatives.

The problem does not lie in theinstruments themselves, but inthe way they are orchestrated.To address this problem, Europeset up a demonstration pro-gramme in 1996, based on 35projects that are testing innova-tive best practice in IntegratedCoastal Zone Management se-lected to represent the diversityof conditions in the EU coastalzones, these projects aredemonstrating how economical-ly and environmentally sustain-able development can be pro-moted through: improvedinformation flows; better coop-eration between sectors and lev-els of administration; and greaterpublic participation in the plan-ning process. As well as provid-ing specific examples of success-ful approaches to coastal zonemanagement, the experiences of

the Demonstration Programmeare being used to aliment a de-bate about a future common Eu-ropean Strategy on I.C.Z.M.

• Bathing water quality has become a key issue fortourists.

• Successfully restored dunes and the rescue ofthreatened animal species demonstrate the poten-tial effectiveness of what are often isolated and lo-calised rehabilitation initiatives.

• Vital investment is taking place in industrial and ur-ban waste processing.

• Awareness of these issues is now widespread in Eu-rope and continues to rise.

• Once again, the absence of reliable and comparabledata is undermining the effectiveness of controls.

• Many local initiatives still fail to take account of therepercussions on neighbouring ecosystems.

• Effective criteria have yet to be formulated for abetter balance between town planing, environmen-tal protection and the exploitation of natural re-sources.

• Too many countries outside Europe still have to bepersuaded that these measures are truly necessary.


Where will we stretch out or bathe?(Beach in Normandy, France)


98

Sharing responsibilityfor the sea

The ecological quality of ourcoastal and marine zones can’tbe improved through legislationalone at European level, andeven less so at national and re-gional level. The state of theMediterranean or Baltic, for in-stance, is determined by the en-vironmental policies of all thesurrounding states. The healthof Europe’s coastal zones de-pends very strongly on the con-duct of all the people who areactive there, in sectors likeshipping, fishing and the off-shore industry. These are thecurrents and tides that truly de-termine the dilution and spreadof any pollution. That’s why Eu-rope takes an active part in theinternational debate to per-suade less committed countriesto join it on its mission.

Clear vision for effective action

Europe has gone a long way to-wards deciding what ought tobe done. Our next task is tofind ways of putting these deci-s ions into practice. Thedemonstration programmewill be a vital tool in this pro-cess. By applying the most ef-fective strategies, we will gra-dually restore the ecologicalbalance of our marine andcoastal zones, thereby ensu-ring sustainable development inthe future. The creation of re-liable and uniform evaluationtools will greatly enhance thecoordination of all the partieswhose decision-making has animpact on the way theseecosystems evolve. Mean-while, reliable data-banks andeffective instruments for dataexchange and comparison willgive the EU the information itneeds to ensure that its Mem-ber States apply the agreed po-lices and instruments effective-ly. They will also enable it to

assert its rights in negotiationswith third countries involved inthese complex issues.

Local initiatives: gettingaway from

self-interestIt is generally understoodnowadays that the economicfuture of our marine and coastalregions is closely bound up withthe quality of their environ-ment. As we have seen, though,efforts to safeguard this quality— improving bathing water, forinstance, or saving a particularspecies of fish — do not alwaysmean that the people con-cerned are willing to take partin an overall approach to envi-ronmental protection. For thatreason, many local initiatives,usually taken with the best in-tentions in the world, have end-ed up harming the general in-terest of the fragile andvulnerable zones which borderour coasts. Too often, measuresto reduce one type of industrialpollution have simply allowedother problems to become es-tablished.

Greater professionalismand responsibility at seaInternational marine transport isclearly implicated in the problemof marine and coastal pollution.The huge oil-slicks that havedevastated parts of the Euro-pean coastline over the past 20years are simply the most spec-tacular illustration of this phe-nomenon. Emptying and cleaningtanks offshore, unlicensed dump-ing of waste and toxic productsand intensive fishing all testify tothe fact that many people see theocean as something that is thereto be used. And that when itcomes to waste products andpollution, out of sight is out ofmind. Responsibility often lieswith badly trained or even un-trained crews operating poorlymaintained ships under flags ofconvenience. Europe has al-ready acted (introducing naviga-tion corridors, emergency sys-tems, etc.) but the situation canonly really be dealt with at inter-national level, through tightercontrols and stricter and prop-erly enforced international rules.


The environmental quality of the coastalzones principally depends on local initia-tives.(Coastal regions of the Highlands, Scot-land)


99

Risks and threatsIn recent years there is recogni-tion of the necessity to acceptthe existence of a more exten-sive scope for Civil Protection.Naturally, the global develop-ment and the vulnerability orsensitivity of modern society isthe background to this. Even ifextensive integration withinmodern societies, includingeconomic and technological de-velopment, has increased theability to withstand and dealwith difficult situations, moderndevelopment still involves in-creasing risks. Accidents thathave not been foreseeable orsituations where sufficient pre-paredness measures have notbeen undertaken will occur. Inthe words of Aristotle it is likelythat something unlikely will oc-cur.

DisastersThe incidents in Europe affect-ing the environment seriouslyare well known for instancethose involving the tankersAmoco Cadiz (230.000 tons ofoil), Aegean Sea, Braer and SeaEmpress, the Basel chemical ac-cident with its consequencesfor the Rhine, the dam incidentthreatening the Donana Na-tional Park, the release of achemical cloud containing diox-ins at Seveso and the Chernobylaccident. Some examples of se-rious natural and technologicaldisasters and their effects, oth-er than environmental damage,

are to be found in the table.Civil Protection has to be pre-pared for different types of seri-ous emergencies.

Demands on Civil Protection

Most Member States within theframework of their Civil Pro-tection are redefining their as-sessments of the environmentalrisks and accidental threats, orhave already done so. The re-quirements on Civil Protectionare being adjusted to meet andcorrespond to these risks andthreats. There is also a generaldemand to make the public ser-vices more efficient by the bestpossible use of available re-sources in society and to beprepared for all the differenttypes of serious emergencies.

ractical experience indicates clearly the environ-mental risks and the threats that a modern societyis facing. Natural disasters have had serious effectson the whole society in many European countries.Fires pose a substantial threat and the technologicalrisks are growing. The protection of persons, envi-ronment and property from such risks is a generalobligation for governments and a considerable chal-lenge for Civil Protection.P

Facts and Trends

Environmental risks and threats to society from natural and technological disasters

ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS

Natural and technological disasters in the EU1953 earthquakes in Ionian islands Greece, 455 dead, 4.400 injured, 27.700 buildings

damaged1963 landslide and flooding in Vaiont-Longarone, Italy, 1.759 dead1976 volcano eruption of the Soufrière, Guadeloupe, 70.000 evacuated1980 earthquakes in Campania/Basilicata, Italy, 2.739 dead, 8.816 injured, 334.000

homeless

1953 tidal wave and flooding, Zeeland, Netherlands, 2.000 dead, 300.000 affected1954 avalanche, Vorarlberg, Austria, 125 dead1959 dam breakage (Malpasset dam), Fréjus, France, 421 dead1962 tidal wave and floods, Hamburg, Germany, 400 dead, more than 100.000 affect-

ed1962 flooding in Barcelona, Spain, 500 dead1967 flooding due to rainstorm, Lisbon, Portugal, 500 dead, landslides, infrastructure

destroyed1990 storms in Belgium, 19 dead

1967 department store fire (L’Innovation), Brussels, Belgium, 325 dead1973 hotel. fire, Copenhagen, Denmark, 35 dead1981 fire in a bar, Ireland, 48 dead, 214 injured1985 forest fires, north of the Tejo and south of Douro river, Portugal, 14 dead1990 ferry fire (Scandinavian Star), off Sweden, 158 dead, 30 injured

1976 explosion and fire in a chemical installation, Flixborough, United Kingdom, 28dead

1978 explosion of a gas tank truck, San Carlos de la Rápida (Tarragona), Spain, 216dead, several hundreds wounded

1985 release of oil during loading in the Port of Naples, Italy, 7 dead, 19 wounded,2.300 evacuated

1987 explosion of road tanker holding 36.000 l of gasoline, Herborn, Germany, 5dead, 38 injured

1992 plane crash into an Amsterdamblock of flats, Netherlands,more than 50 dead

1994 ferry sinking (Estonia), off Fin-land, 865 dead

1998 railway accident, Eschede, Ger-many, 101 dead

* environmental risks and threatsto modern society are growing* Civil Protection has considerableincreasing challenges

100

Civil ProtectionEuropean cooperation in CivilProtection has been developingsince 1985. The aim has been tosupport and promote action byMember States. The basic ob-jectives are:

• To encourage and offer guid-ance to national, regional andlocal efforts in the field of di-saster prevention, to help inthe training of Civil Protec-tion personnel and to offerassistance in the event of adisaster. A variety of actionsprovide measures to achievethis objective such as ex-change of experts, work-shops for exchange of expe-rience and pilot projects.

• To set up a permanentframework for efficient and

rapid cooperation betweenMember States in the event ofan emergency.

Regular simulation exercises in-volving different Member Statesare conducted with the supportof the Commission to test theeffectiveness of emergencyprocedures using different real-istic scenarios.

Much attention is devotedwithin Community coopera-tion on Civil Protection to in-formation of the public in rela-tion to accidents as well astraining of the public on appro-priate action to be taken. Asmany countries have involve-ment of volunteers in Civil Pro-tection, these issues are alsosubject to Community cooper-ation. To facilitate action by thepublic in case of an accident, asingle emergency number 112has been introduced for get-ting necessary assistance fromthe Civil Protection services inall Member States.

Spills at SeaA Community action plan al-lows Member States to respondmore effectively to marine pol-lution incidents involving spillsat sea of hydrocarbons or otherharmful substances. The pro-gramme also creates the condi-

tions for mutual assistance andeffective cooperation and pro-vides:

• A joint information systemensuring that national emer-gency teams have access tocurrent detailed informationon response capabilities,properties and behaviour ofhydrocarbons etc.

• A training programme,which gives national govern-ments the qualified person-nel, required to respond toincidents and at the sametime fosters a spirit of coop-eration between MemberStates

• Pilot projects to developbetter anti-pollution tech-nology.

The Commission and nationalgovernments have been in-volved and cooperated in theresponse to a number of Ma-rine pollution tanker incidents,including the recent Sea Em-press accident off the Welshcoast in 1996, the wreckage ofthe Braer in the Shetlands in1993 and the grounding and fireon the Aegean Sea in La Corunain 1992.

Major-Accident Hazards involving

Dangerous SubstancesFor hazardous, high-risk in-dustrial activities previous le-gislation tended to focus onthe protection of workers, thequality of manufactured prod-ucts and standards for air andwater pollution. The aim wasto a great extent to safeguardnormal operation. The 1982Council Directive (SEVESO I)is concerned with the preven-tion of, preparedness for andresponse to major accidentsinvolving dangerous sub-stances. Following a funda-mental review a new Directive(SEVESO II) has entered intoforce in February 1997.

The Community has taken significant action in response tothe serious incidents that have occurred but also to im-prove preparedness. Programmes for promoting and sup-porting the ability of Member States in respect to Civil Pro-tection policies have been introduced. Further actions arefor instance pilot projects to develop better technology foremergencies. In the area of the control of major-accidenthazards involving dangerous substances, Community legis-lation has been introduced. After the Chernobyl accidentthe Community has undertaken significant action to pre-vent similar disasters and improve the emergency pre-paredness and response measures but has also assisted inimproving the safety of Soviet-built reactors.

Europe in action

A new concept for facing the risks

The effectiveness of any evacuationplan has to be tested using simulatedemergencies.

ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS

101

The new Directive builds uponthe existing Directive, but sim-plifies the scope and adds newrequirements related to safetymanagement systems, land-use planning, emergency plan-ning, information to the publicand inspection by the nationalpublic authorities. The Direc-tive is applicable to establish-ments, which are defined asthe whole area under the con-trol of an operator where dan-gerous substances over certainthreshold levels are present inone or more installations, in-cluding common or related in-frastructures or activities.

The general obligation in theDirective is that an operatormust take all necessary mea-sures to prevent major acci-dents and, in case of such anaccident, to limit its conse-quences and to be able toprove, at any time, that he hastaken all these measures. Alloperators are obliged to havea major-accident preventionpolicy. For establishments inwhich dangerous substancesare present in quantities abovea higher threshold level thereare more requirements suchas to produce a safety reportthat has to be examined by thecompetent authorit ies andthat must demonstrate a l lmeasures undertaken. I tshould be noted that radiolog-ical emergencies continue tobe dealt with under separateEuratom provisions (see be-low).

The SEVESO II Directive alsocontains a requirement forMember States to report to theCommission all accidents andto provide a more detailed anal-ysis of an accident in a report.The accident information isgathered in a Major-AccidentReporting System (MARS)which has been established inthe Major Accident Hazard Bu-reau (MAHB) at the Joint Re-search Centre (JRC) in Ispra,Italy.

Radiological Emergencies

The 1957 Euratom Treaty,which created the EuropeanAtomic Energy Community, setout to ‘establish safety condi-tions that will reduce the threatto citizens’ lives and health’. Adirective, which has been up-dated successively, was duly in-troduced in 1959 to protectworkers and the population atlarge from the dangers to healthresulting from ionising radia-tion. That directive has beenregularly revised to reflect theevolution of knowledge and theapproach to risk, the most re-cent revision being in 1996.

The European Community ’simmediate response to theChernobyl accident in 1986 wasto take steps to protect its citi-zens from the consequences ofthe accident. It also re-exam-ined its procedures for prevent-ing similar disasters in its ownterritory and reviewed and in-troduced new measures to becarried out if such an incidentdid actually occur, including aCommunity information sys-tem.

Throughout the process of po-litical and economical reform inthe former Soviet Union, theEuropean Community has ac-tively helped the authorities inthe Ukraine, Belarus and theRussian Federation to deal with

the aftermath of the Chernobylaccident. While its main focushas been on improving the safe-ty of Soviet-built reactors inEastern Europe, permanentlysealing off the Chernobyl plantand providing direct aid to thevictims of the accident, it hasalso sought to improve pre-paredness for accidents.

Cumulative deposition of

caesium-137 from the

Chernobyl accident

kBq/m2

More than 100

32 – 100

10 – 32

3.2 – 10

1 – 3.2

0.32 – 1

0.10 – 0.32

Less than 0.10

0 1000km

Note: Data are available in areas not included in this compilation from the European Commission’s REM data bank, but cannot be presented on a European basis due to incompatibility of data.

Chernobyl

50° 40° 30° 20° 10° 0° 10° 20° 30° 40° 50° 60° 70° 80°

60°

50°

40°

40°30°20°10°0°10°

30°

40°

50°

ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS

• Civil Protection programmes forpromotion and supportingMember States are implemented

• Community support actions areconducted to deal with spills atsea

• All necessary accident preven-tion and mitigation measuresare required at industrial esta-blishments dealing with dange-rous substances

• Any citizen in Europe can in anemergency call the one singlenumber for assistance 112

102

Action ProgrammeWithin the Community ActionsProgramme on Civil Protec-tion, contributing to the pro-tection of persons, environ-ment and property in the eventof a natural or technologicaldisaster, a rolling plan is imple-mented with the intention ofsupporting and supplementingMember States’ efforts andtheir actions on national, re-gional and local levels. The aimis also to facilitate Civil Protec-t ion cooperation betweenMember States in the preven-tion, preparedness and res-ponse to accidents.

Accidental Marine Pollution

As a consequence of the seri-ous incidents involving marinepollution that have occurred,the Member States have since

many years been cooperatingin this area and have esta-blished ability to respond tothe incidents. However, noMember State has resourcesenough to deal with a major oilspill on its own. Mutual use ofavailable resources is thereforea necessity.

In support of the MemberStates the Community has de-veloped an Action Plan and theCommission is playing a role ofsignificant importance in thisarea. One instrument is theCommunity Task Force, whichcan provide assistance utilisingexperts drawn from the diffe-rent Member States. A propos-al for a Framework for Dealingwith Accidental Marine Pollu-tion is being considered to en-able improved systematic andconsolidated action.

Natural DisastersThe risks and threats posed bynatural disasters have a tenden-cy to increase. The combinationof this and the vulnerability ofmodern society calls for a moreextensive use of risk assessmentas well as improved preventiveand preparedness measures.The community takes an activerole in promoting developmentand facilitating assistance in caseof natural disasters.

However, each Member State isresponsible for such actions, in-cluding the implementation ofland-use planning and develop-ment mechanisms, required forthe reduction of effects fromnatural disasters. In 1953, for in-stance, Northern Europe suf-fered violent coastal floodingwhich cost many lives. TheStates affected later introduceda system of coastal defences andpreventative features like theDelta Plan and the Thames Bar-rage. Projects like this often re-quire a cross-border approach.


Will the ‘Delta Plan’ resist rising sea levelssuch as are feared for the coming century?(The Delta Plan, the Netherlands)

ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS

The authorities in each Member States are responsible forthe conduct of Civil Protection within its territory. In re-cent years the use of risk assessment as a basis for under-taking both preventive and preparedness measures hasbeen introduced and come into general practice. However,environmental risks and threats to society also call for con-tinued efforts to develop and adapt resources to cover newrequirements.

Development to cover the new challenges

• each Member State is responsible for theconduct of Civil Protection within its ownterritory

• risk assessment is an instrument for pre-vention and preparedness measures

• cooperation is well established for dealingwith cases of accidental marine pollution

• for the reduction of the effects of naturaldisasters mechanisms such as landuseplanning are used

103

Making soil is a long-termproposition. It takes between1,000 and 10,000 years to cre-ate just 30 cm of earth. To all in-tents and purposes, therefore,soil is very much a non-renew-able resource.

Pollution and contamination

It is only recently that we havebegun to appreciate the impor-tance of soil. Because it is static,it is the ideal receptacle for agreat many pollutants, whichbuild up in the earth until it issaturated. Soil acts as a stagingpost in the secret life of certainheavy metals, sustaining theirtoxic impact on every link of thefood chain.

Soil pollution has a variety ofcauses, from acid deposits andexcessive use of fertilisers andpesticides to the storage anddumping of materials on indus-trial sites, the disposal of do-mestic and industrial waste andnuclear contamination. The vul-nerability of soils also dependson their specific character.Some function better than oth-ers as buffers or filters betweenthe surface and the groundwa-ter layer.

Can we afford to clean up?

The cost of dealing with sitesrequiring urgent decontami-nation was estimated in 1988at ECU 27 billion over a 15-year period. This translatesinto ECU 5 per citizen per

year. With a price-tag l ikethat, i t is t ime we startedthinking very seriously aboutprevention. Hence the needfor a careful balance betweenexploitation and protection ofthe soil.

ErosionSoil erosion is a natural phe-nomenon caused by water andair and is especially prevalent inthe Mediterranean region. Itcan, however, be acceleratedby deforestation and inappro-priate agricultural practices.The cost of erosion, including

the loss of water resources, re-duced agricultural output andflood damage, has been esti-mated at ECU 280 million ayear. The cost of restoring plantcover and the fertility of the soilhas been calculated at aroundECU 3 billion over a period of15-20 years.

Soil is an ecosystem.Some 18 to 40 tons of earth a year aredigested by 4 tons of worms perhectare of soil. Subterranean flora andfauna transform organic matter intohumus and mix it with minerals. Theyalso aerate the soil, which benefitsplant life.

oil is far more than an inanimate base on which humanbeings can develop their economic activities. It is acomplete ecosystem in itself. The inhabitants of thisdark world range from bacteria to fungus and fromworms to small mammals.S

Facts and Trends

Living earthErosion and pollution are themain problems affecting soilquality in Europe. The qualityof soil as a natural resourcehas deteriorated alarminglymore or less throughout theEU.

SOIL

104

Which soil?’Soil protection’ refers to a widevariety of soil types, irres-pective of the specific use towhich they are put. Soil is acomplex and dynamic system,the vulnerability of which de-pends on its specific character(sandy, moist, acid, clayey,silty, etc.) and its ability tostore up or filter pollutants.Rather than talking about ‘pro-tecting’ these dynamic, com-plex and heterogeneousecosystems, it is better to fo-cus on their specific use (agri-culture, forestry, industry) andthe problems that arise fromthis use.

AcidificationThe main cause of soil acidifica-tion is atmospheric and comesfrom the burning of fossil fuelsand industrial emissions. Its im-pact on soil is not visible to thenaked eye. In forests, for in-stance, the tops of trees (thecanopy) acts as a filter, concen-trating toxic products like alu-minium.

The main threat acidificationposes to soil is the contamina-tion of surface and groundwa-ter, which has serious implica-tions for aquatic life and for ourdrinking water reserves. In thelong run, some soils graduallylose their buffering capacity,accelerating the passage ofheavy metals into the ground-water. Acidification also re-duces the fertility of soil butthis can be offset using fertilis-ers. The filtration capacity ofthe soil, by contrast, cannot berestored.

The European Community hasworked hard to reduce toxicemissions, whether industrialin orig in or caused by theburning of fuel. The Commis-sion adopted a draft frame-work directive in 1993 de-signed to prevent pollution

from large industrial plants andto reduce their general envi-ronmental impact. The strate-gy to be pursued involvesadapting industrial plants toreduce emission levels. As faras fuels are concerned, theCommunity has already intro-duced legislation to reduceemissions from diesel motors.Other directives meanwhile,target the sulphur and leademitted by vehicle engines andby industry and waste inciner-ators.

AgricultureCertain farming methods cancause a significant number ofenvironmental problems — es-pecially those affecting soil.Erosion, which effects the en-tire planet, can be increased byploughing parallel to slopes,neglecting hedgerows or ter-race cultivation, increasingfield sizes, using machines thatare too heavy and compact thesoil and the late sowing of win-ter cereals. Increased erosioncan only be combated byadopting appropriate farmingpractices.

Modern agriculture has had tobecome more intensive tomeet the demands of a steadi-ly growing population. Pesti-cides and nitrogenous fertilis-ers cannot be used, however,without some risk to soi l ,groundwater and even the cul-tivation they are supposed topromote.

The ‘Nitrates Directive’ in1991, introduced an agricul-tural code of practice withthe aim of reducing nitrateuse. The practice of spread-ing pur i f icat ion s ludge onfields is covered by a direc-tive, which regulates the levelof heavy metals permitted inthe soil. Finally, although pes-ticide use as such is not yetcontrolled at European level,it is still affected by a direc-

tive, which established per-missible pesticide levels indrinking water.

Industrial pollutionIndustrial activity, present orpast, often results in localisedsoil pollution. The most fre-quently encountered pollu-tants include metals, chemi-cals, oil and tar, pesticides,explosive gases, radioactivematerials, active biologicalmatter and asbestos. They areproduced by industry and bydumping — legal or other-wise.

In the mid-1980s, the Euro-pean Community began todraw up a list of contaminateds ites. Around 25% of the200,000 hectares identifiedhad been used for metal orcoal production. The cost ofrestoring these sites has beencalculated at over ECU 100billion. What’s more, the situ-ation in Eastern Europe is like-ly to be every bit as bad, if notworse. We urgently have tofind a balance between afford-able decontamination and ad-dress ing the health r isksposed by the current situa-tion.

Radioactive contamination

Throughout the world, all soilscontain radioact ive sub-stances. The typical averageconcentrations of potassium40 is about 300 bequerel perkilogram, the average concen-trations of uranium 238 andthorium 232 are about 40 be-querel per kilogram for eachradionuclide.

Radionuclides in the soil canlead to the exposure of man toionising radiation via direct irra-diation from the ground and ra-dionuclides accumulated insome food chains. This becameof concern in the fifties and thesixties, as a consequence of thedeposition by atmospheric test

Europe in action

SOIL

105

of atomic weapons. Most ofsuch tests took place between1948 and 1963.

The 1957 Treaty establishingthe European Atomic EnergyCommunity, the EuratomTreaty, requires, in its Article35, Member States to establishthe facilities necessary to carryout continuous monitoring ofthe levels of radioactivity in theair, water and soil, and to en-sure compliance with the Euro-pean Community Basic SafetyStandards.

The explosion of the Chernobylreactor on 26 April 1986 andthe subsequent fire, which last-ed for about two weeks, causedsevere contamination of threelarge territories, mainly whatare now the three independentrepublics of Belarus, Russia andUkraine.

As a consequence of the acci-dent, many people were evac-uated and hectares of agricul-tural, natural and semi-natural

land were completely restric-ted from use. Cooperativeprogrammes involving institu-tions and scientists from theEuropean Union and from themost affected republics wereset up to study the behaviourand the transfer of radionu-clides in the contaminated en-vironment. Management sys-tems were developed formitigating the effect of thecontamination.

Former open fields, Slagelse, Sjæl-land, eastern Denmark. Organic mat-ter is vital to the balance of the soil. Itretains water, acts as a nutrient re-serve and forms a chemical buffer. In-tensive cultivation can reduce organicmatter and diminish overall biologicalactivity and diversity. One way of ad-dressing these problems is to incor-porate fallow periods in the rotationplan and to replace stubble burningwith burial. Europe’s policy of en-couraging fallow periods can onlybenefit farmland.

SOIL

106

Member statesUp to now, soil protection poli-cies have concentrated onmaintaining fertility (essentiallyfor the benefit of agricultureand forestry), protecting waterreserves and preventing thedamage inflicted by human eco-nomic activity (industry andwaste disposal).

Some countries (Austria, Italy,the Netherlands and Switzer-land) already have laws whichplace the emphasis on soil assuch and on the causes of soildegradation, such as overgraz-ing. The oldest laws of this kindare undoubtedly those de-signed to reduce soil erosion(Iceland, 1895). In more recentyears, legislation has been pro-duced to control soil pollution.The Netherlands and Den-mark, meanwhile, have passedlaws requiring the clean-up ofpolluted sites.

Even so, it is still unusual forother forms of soil degradationto be taken into account. Legis-lators face the difficulty that,unlike air or water, soil actuallybelongs to someone. As envi-ronmental law stands at pre-sent, soil protection has to benegotiated between the re-sponsible authorities and theowners or occupants.

International cooperation

Analysis of soil degradation andpollution reveals the need fornational and international actionto protect it. Some problemsextend across frontiers and canonly be dealt with if all thecountries involved work to-gether. This is particularly thecase with toxic substances of at-mospheric origin. Several pro-grammes in this field have beeninitiated in Europe, involvingthe OECD, the Council of Eu-rope, UNEP, and other organi-sations.

OutlookSoil protection policy in the fu-ture will have to take fuller ac-count of the ‘multifunctionality’principle. This is already thecase in the Netherlands, Ger-many and Switzerland, wheresoil is not only considered interms of how it can be exploit-ed. After all, soils are not just

distinguished by their use, butalso by the specific way in whichthey respond to the differentproblems. Taking account ofthe vulnerability of the soilwhen planning land use wouldminimise the impact of humanactivities.

Experts agree that the first thingwe need to do is to gain a betterunderstanding of the problemand its causes and effects. Wedon’t even have a complete listof contaminated sites in Europe.Once the problems have beenestablished and the trends iden-tified, we will be able to set upmonitoring networks for vulner-able soils and to develop effec-tive protection methods. For thetime being, finally, we have toprotect soil from permanentdamage and only to use it forpurposes that are reversible.The precaution principle is thefirst step towards taking fulleraccount of the suitability and vul-nerability of soil.

Soil quality could continueto deteriorate in the future,in spite of the programmesinitiated by Member States.Environmental policies andsoil protection measures stillhave only limited objectivesand we lack the informationwe need to form a completepicture of the current situa-tion. The absence of Com-munity policy in this particu-lar f ie ld is due to theprinciple of subsidiarity.

Deprived from vegetal coverage, thesoil isn’t protected any longer from windand rain erosion.


SOIL

107

NATURE AND WILDLIFE

BIODIVERSITY

109

This natural wealth is not dis-tributed evenly across Europe.There are fewer species inNorthern Europe, for instance,which was covered in ice until10,000 years ago. The Mediter-ranean basin, by contrast, isteeming with plants, many ofthem specific to that region.The small French Départementof Alpes Maritimes alone boastsmore species of flowering plant(2,500) than the whole of theUnited Kingdom, which is 100times its size.

Humans have been reshapingthe countryside for thousandsof years, clearing forests, culti-vating the soil, draining marsh-es, a lter ing the course ofrivers, excavating mines, layingroads and building towns. Ourenvironment is becoming in-creasingly artificial. Many ani-mals and plants have had toseek refuge in areas that arenot attractive to humans. Buteven these natural enclavesare under increasing threat.Rare natural habitats are dete-riorating, while others havetotal ly disappeared undergrowing pressure from humanactivities. As people have al-tered their environment, theyhave increasingly jeopardisedthe fragile balance of nature onwhich we depend — the com-position of the air we breathe,the CO2 which is processed byplants, the purity of our water,which filters through the soil,and the entire balance of afood chain in which we are

merely the final link. We sharethe natural stage with otherspecies and habitats. As we ap-proach the end of the 20thcentury, the review of our per-formance, whether in terms ofhabitats or species, is scathing.Habitats are fragmenting andbecoming rarer. They are lessand less able to harbourwildlife. And as small popula-tions become increasingly iso-lated, they can no longer main-tain the links they need toensure vital genetic exchange.The number of plant and ani-mal species threatened withextinction is growing all thetime.

Species facing extinction

Animals and plants interactclosely with the environmentson which they depend. Specieshave always appeared and dis-appeared naturally or followingcatastrophic events such asvolcanic eruptions or an en-croaching ice age. For the past10,000 years, however, themain agent of change has beenhumanity, which has constantlycreated new ecological condi-tions. The result has been analarming reduction in the num-ber of animal and plant speciesmore or less throughout Eu-rope. In the case of localisedspecies, disappearance from agiven region is synonymouswith extinction.

The brown bear of the Pyre-nees, for instance, only a fewof which remain, looksdoomed to disappear, despite arecent, limited attempt at rein-troduction.

We don’t inherit the earth, butwe do need to preserve it forour children. For that reason,we urgently need to protectour fragile and threatened her-itage. Nature knows nothingof walls or frontiers and so ithas to be protected on a glob-al and supranational basis. Eu-rope’s actions are based en-tirely on recognition of thisfact.

urope may be the second smallest continent, butfrom the Atlantic plains to the Russian Steppes andfrom Lapland to the Mediterranean, it is home to animmense variety of ecosystems, both natural andsemi-natural. These include increasingly rare exam-ples of forests, peat bogs and marshlands that haveso far been untouched by human activity. Others,such as grasslands, lakes, rivers, marine ecosystems,mountains, deserts, tundra, dunes and cliffs form apalette of landscapes and environments that nur-ture an abundance of plant and animal varieties,some of which aren’t found anywhere else.E

Facts and Trends

Our fragile and threatened heritage

• Big carnivore species(brown bear, wolf, lynx)have disappeared sincecenturies from most ofcentral and Western coun-tries;

• Between a third and half ofall European fish, reptiles,mammals and amphibiansare under threat;

• The total area of protect-ed sites in Europe hastripled since 1972. Many ofthese are small or frag-mented, however, and arenot effectively protectedfor want of money or per-sonnel.

In Europe, the brown bear is threat-ened by extinction.(Brown bear — Ursus arctos)

NATURE AND WILDLIFE

110

Several trends can be identifiedin the development of Euro-pean nature conservation poli-cies in recent years. There hasbeen a movement:• From the protection of

species towards the protec-tion of habitats;

• From the protection ofspecies and habitats towardsthe protection of the naturalprocesses on which they de-pend;

• From nature protection as aself-contained exercise to-wards the integration of na-ture conservation as a stan-dard feature ofenvironmental planning andmanagement in every sectorof the economy;

• From local or national pro-grammes towards coordi-nated programmes of inter-national cooperation, and

• From the conservation of na-ture for its aesthetic and sci-entif ic value towards arecognition of the eco-sys-tems, species and biodiversi-ty that are required for sus-tainable development.

Species and habitatsSince 1979, the Birds Direc-tive has imposed a duty onMember States to protect thehabitats of their wild bird pop-ulations. All wild bird speciesare protected under this di-rective. Hunting is allowed forcertain species but only undercontrolled conditions. There isa particular obligation to desig-nate special protection areasfor 181 rare and vulnerablespecies as well as for migrato-ry birds (nearly 1700 sites cov-ering 110 000 Km2 to date).Experts, however, agree thatan area twice as large wouldbe needed to create a networkcapable of sustaining migrato-ry species.The Habitats Directive, adopt-ed in 1992, the year of the Rio

summit on the environmentand development, is the mainCommunity instrument safe-guarding biodiversity. It broad-ens the scope for nature pro-tection to other species andincludes the conservation ofhabitats as an objective in itsown right for the first time.The major challenge of this di-rective is the creation of theEuropean ecological networkof natural areas, called ‘Natura2000’. All areas designated un-der the Birds Directive alsoform part of the Natura 2000network.

Natura 2000, the European

Ecological NetworkEach Member State is responsi-ble for identifying and propos-ing as Special Areas of Conser-vation sites, which areimportant for the protection ofthe species and habitats cov-ered by the Directive. Theseareas will benefit from statutoryor contractual measures and,where appropriate, manage-

ment plans that will ensure theirlong-term preservation by inte-grating human activities into asustainable development strat-egy.Each Member State can choosethe mechanisms it uses to par-ticipate in this joint enterprise.The Commission is helping toset up the network and ensurethat the common goals becomereality.

Nature and agriculturego hand in hand

The fragmentation and shrink-age of habitats is having the ef-fect of isolating populationsfrom one another. This phe-nomenon is known as ’insulari-sation’ and results in genetic im-poverishment and ultimatelythe extinction of populations asthey are forced to breedamongst themselves. The solu-tion is to enable habitats tocommunicate with one anotherby means of wider countrysidemeasures. This allows threat-ened species to circulate and toescape the trap of insularisa-tion.

Europe must also take full ac-count of nature conservationnowadays in its economic de-velopment schemes. It is ac-knowledged, for instance,that certain EU measures,particularly agricultural policy,have had a direct and some-t imes harmful impact onwildlife. From now on, Euro-pean projects should respectthose habitats and speciesdesignated as important bythe Birds and Habitats Direc-tives.

Europe in action

Nature and Europe go back a long way

The peregrinefalcon perchesat the top ofthe food chain,where i t has

suffered from the accumulation oftoxic residues in its prey resultingfrom the large-scale use of insecti-cides since the 1950s. A ban onorganochlorines (which damagesegg-shells) has helped the popula-tion of this predator to begin grow-ing again. But other threats likepoachers and collectors still hangover the heads of these regal crea-tures.

Peregrinefalcon

NATURE AND WILDLIFE

111

International actionsThe European Communityplays an active part in thedrafting and implementation ofinternational conventions onthe environment. Internationalactions of this kind take theform of treat ies or pro-grammes embracing the

whole world or focusing onspecific regions.The initiatives in which Europe isinvolved notably includes theCITES Convention on trade in en-dangered species, the BerneConvention, which aims to pro-tect wildlife and natural habitats inEurope and the Bonn Conventionon migratory species and, morerecently, the Rio Convention on

biodiversity which inspired theEU biodiversity strategy.Finally, by emphasising the im-portance of nature in its legisla-tion, Europe is displaying a newrecognition of the value of ournatural heritage. Thereby, theCommunity is demonstrating toits neighbours a real commit-ment to efficient nature conser-vation.

Biogeographic Regions(Council Directive 92/43/EEC)

NATURE AND WILDLIFE

MediterraneanMacaronesianAlpineAtlanticContinentalBoreal

112

National actionMember States and regions didnot wait for Europe to act.They began by granting pro-tected status to species threat-ened by farming methods,shooting and collection, beforeextending this protection tosites viewed as exemplary habi-tats. These nature reserves varywidely in terms of both size andthe degree of protection theyoffer.Member States should translateEuropean Directives into theirown national law. The Birds andHabitats Directives have placeda duty on them to develop newprotection measures.

Habitats are also being protect-ed by incorporating importantsites in networks and by takingfull account of nature whendrafting policies in other sectorslike agriculture, transport andenergy. Member States and lo-cal authorities can do a greatdeal to protect and promotetheir natural heritage by em-phasising it in their economicstrategy and at all levels of townand country planning. The aimof European Union policy is toensure that nature protection isgiven its rightful place amongst

the priorities of every politicaldecision-maker, from the draft-ing of regional economic devel-opment plans to the issuing of asimple building permit.

AEuropeAEuropean policy on nature con-servation has to contend withboth a plethora of local initia-tives (nature reserves, protect-ed species, etc.) and a criticallack of data. Strategies, regula-tions and actions to protect na-ture in the future will lack direc-tion unless we have comparableinformation concerning thestate of eco-systems, speciesand the results of protectivemeasures that have alreadybeen taken locally. The creationof a European EnvironmentAgency based in Copenhagenought to provide the EuropeanCommunity with an effectivetool in this field.

ACitizensAMany non-governmental organ-isations have done a great dealof remarkable work over theyears, gathering information onspecies, maintaining reservesand raising public and govern-

ment awareness of environ-mental problems. We wouldknow considerably less aboutnature without these enthusias-tic ornithologists, botanists andnaturalists who have been con-tributing to our scientif icknowledge for generations. In-dividual citizens might worrythat on their own they can con-tribute little more than a loveand understanding of nature,and that decision-making issomething that goes on abovetheir heads. Surely they can dolittle more than recycle theirrefuse and buy environmentallyfriendly products? In reality, youdon’t have to be an expert topromote nature. Anyone cando so by creating a natural gar-den, a pond or a little pocket ofgreenery which — even in themiddle of the city — can act asa way-station for birds and but-terflies or as a home for somenative plant. In this way, citizenscan provide natural oases thatwill contribute to nature pro-tection everywhere in theCommunity.

‘La Camargue’ is a regional nature parkwhere the most sensible area is classi-fied as a nature reserve.(‘Etang de Vaccarès’, Camargue –France)


NATURE AND WILDLIFE

113

Biodiversity basically refers to allthe different varieties and formsof life. It breaks down into threelevels — diversity of ecosys-tems, species and genes. In Eu-rope alone, there are an estimat-ed 2,500 types of habitat orecosystems and 215,000species, 90% of which are inver-tebrates. As for genetic diversity,the numbers involved are quitesimply staggering, especially ifwe take account of all the poten-tial gene combinations.If biodiversity simply meant ‘allforms of life’, however, it wouldbe synonymous with ‘bio-sphere’. There’s more to it thanthat. Biodiversity is a propertyof the living world — a geneticreservoir that enables it toevolve and adapt constantly. Inshort, it is the net result ofthree billion years of evolution.

Life itself is runningout steam

People are becoming awarenowadays of the impact theiractivities have on their sur-roundings, particularly the livingworld. The rise of agricultureled to the creation and manage-ment of new environments andactually added to biodiversity.Humans created clearings,

grazing land and hedgerows, allof them opportunities that havebeen gratefully exploited bycountless plant and animalspecies.

And so it remained until veryrecently. In our own time, how-ever, changes in agriculturalpractice (monoculture, fertilis-ers, pesticides and so forth)have joined a whole series ofother human environmentalpressures, from the pollution ofthe air, water and soil, to urban-isation and mass tourism. Theeconomic imperatives of oursociety care little for the valueand role of biodiversity.

Urgent needSince Rio ’92, everyone isaware that we are suffering aglobal loss of biodiversity and

that we urgently need to slowdown this process. The reasonsfor acting are, however, bothnumerous and diverse, reflect-ing the complexity of the sub-ject. In one sense, biodiversity isa resource (in terms of agricul-ture, animal husbandry andpharmaceuticals) that has to bepreserved if we are to have a

useful stock capable of meetingour future needs. Biodiversity isalso relevant to the field of ge-netic manipulation. This is anarea with an immense future,but whether this will prove pos-itive or negative depends verymuch on what we choose to dowith it.

As far as ‘natural’ biodiversity isconcerned, solving the problemwill also require measures toprotect ecosystems and speciesand the setting up of a networkof sites to promote genetic ex-change. Most institutions andstates have already acknowl-edged the vital need to incorpo-rate these ideas in the sectorsimplicated in biodiversity loss,such as agriculture, transportand energy. In fact, the problemtouches every field of humanactivity. The complexity of thesolutions matches that of theproblem, but the first step wehave to make is an intellectualone. Before we can do anythingelse, we have to learn to viewthe earth’s living riches not onlyas a resource for humanity, butabove all as a unique heritage tobe protected.

iodiversity has been a fashionable idea ever sincethe spotlight fell on it during the Rio Earth Sum-mit in June 1992. As with all fashions, however,there is a danger that people will eventually getbored with it. To make matters worse, ‘biodi-versity’ is frequently mixed up with ‘nature’ or‘environment’. In reality, it is much more com-plex than that.B

Facts and Trends

Planet Earth - the new Ark

Distribution of higher plants by conti-nent. Source : IUCN.

The beauty often goes together withthe ecological richness of a biotope.(Cordillera Cantábrica, Spain)

CONTINENT/REGION PLANT NUMBER

Latin America (Mexico through S America) 85.000Tropical & subtropical Africa 45.000Tropical & subtropical Asia 50.000Australia 15.000North America 17.000Europe 12.500

BIODIVERSITY

114

Abundant lifeDespite its relatively smallsurface area and the fact thatpart of its territory was com-pletely covered in ice barelyten thousand years ago, Eu-rope presents naturalists witha huge variety of landscapes,ecosystems and species, manyof which are endemic (notfound elsewhere). The levelof biodiversity in the North isnot so high because of its rel-atively recent glaciation, andso the main nuclei are locatedin the Mediterranean basin,the Atlantic islands and theterr i tor ies lead ing to thefoothills of the Caucasus. Eu-rope boasts roughly 5,000 en-demic varieties of plants, al-though many of these exist inmore than one Member State.Consequent ly, protect ingthem entails cross-border co-operation. At the same time,a great many domesticatedplants and the genetic materi-al they contain come fromcountries other than thosewhere they are cultivated to-day. All the more reason forformulating an internationalpolicy in this field.

The enemies of biodiversity

Many human activities inflictirreversible damage on keyhabitats for certain insects,small mammals and wild plantswhich are deemed unprof-itable and hence undesirable.Biodiversity is damaged for ex-ample by:— The canalisation of rivers

and the destruction of river-banks.

— Intensive agriculture andthe use of pesticides.

— The increasing uniformity ofthe agricultural landscape(disappearance ofhedgerows and copses).

— The draining of marchesand wetlands.

Alternative practices have nowbeen proposed to farmers and

foresters in the hope of recon-ciling economic developmentwith the need to promote bio-diversity.

Legislating on a brandnew concept

The European Community ap-proved the Convention on Bio-logical Diversity signed in Rio inJune 1992. The aims of the

convention are to preserve bio-logical diversity, to engage in thesustainable use of its elementsand to ensure the fair distribu-tion of the benefits arising fromthe exploitation of genetic re-sources. Although these objec-tives may seem clear enough,the way in which they are to beachieved is very complex. The

Community Biodiversity Strate-gy, adopted in February 1998,defines how these objectivesare to be achieved by the Euro-pean Community. This strategyfocuses on the integration ofbiodiversity concerns into thedevelopment and implementa-tion of relevant Communitypolicies and instruments.

Genetic manipulationIn this entirely new field, whosecommercial, medical and envi-ronmental implications remaindifficult to predict, the Commu-nity has chosen to legislate insuch a way as to protect thehealth of its citizens and the en-vironment, but also to create asingle unified market forbiotechnology.

Agriculture and biodiversity

Incorporating biodiversity inother European policies willalso become a priority, particu-larly with respect to the Com-mon Agricultural Policy. Thishas already been the case as faras nature conservation is con-cerned since the reform of theCAP in 1992 (2078/92). Morerecently, Member States haveundertaken to promote ‘green’

Europe in action

The fragile balance of biodiversity

‘The di f ferent species thatmake up an ecosystem may becompared with the countlessrivets, all apparently the same,that g ive an aeroplane i tsstrength. If we were to springthose rivets, one by one, therewould not be an immediatecatastrophe. Sooner or later,however, disaster would in-evitably strike.’ Erlich & Erlich,1981.

The destiny of the seatrout and thehorse are in the hands of man.(Ireland)

BIODIVERSITY

115

agricultural practices. Localprogrammes have emerged toencourage less ‘aggressive’ andenvironmentally harmful farm-ing. These new programmesare long-term in character.They aim to reduce the level ofsoil enrichment and to managethe environment in a way thatconserves nature. Measures ofthis kind were successfully in-troduced in 1994 and even be-fore in certain countries (UK,Germany, Netherlands).

One way to promote biodiver-sity in agriculture is to supportthe production of the kind ofold or local varieties that havegradually been disappearingfrom the market, where theyhave been replaced by standardproducts.

Forestry and biodiversity

Financial support is offered forthe reforestation and manage-ment of woodland areas. Com-mercial forestry is encouraged,of course, but the planting ofseveral different varieties is en-couraged, as is sustainable man-agement, to avoid the negativeside-effects of monoculture.

Action on all frontsThe battle for biodiversity hasto be fought in the many differ-ent sectors that threaten it.Ecosystems and species sufferfrom air, water and soil pollu-tion and from the intensity ofmany economic activities. If weare to shield a greater area fromhuman activities (barely2,000,000 km2 are currentlyprotected) and to reduce thedamage inflicted on all levels oflife, we have to act in all sectors(agriculture, forestry, transport,energy, tourism and finance)and to address the problems ofregional development, soil ero-sion, desertification, air and wa-ter pollution. The complexity ofthe task facing us is clear, as isthe need for a ‘multidisci-plinary’ approach to solving it.

The example of the Loire ‘Europe’s last untamed river’

Haute-Loire, France

The Loire rises in the Massif Central and flows a thousandkilometres to the sea. In the process, it drains 20 % of allFrench waters. Many birds, plants and invertebrates,some of which are rare or vulnerable, have found a refugein its alluvial plain, formed by canals, oxbow lakes, islandsand sandbanks. Salmon, which are a migratory species,have suffered badly from pollution and the constructionof barrages. Nowadays, only one tributary (the Allier) re-

ma ins access ib le to sa lmon, whose popu la t ion hasdropped to a mere 10 % of what it once was. In additionto barrages, the Loire’s ecosystem has also had to con-tend with sand extraction and the impact of intensiveagriculture on its plain.

The Loire is now protected by several programmes in-cluding the Berne Convention and the Ramsar Conven-tion, which led to the cancellation of two barrage pro-j e c t s . T h a n k s t o t h e E u r o p e a n U n i o n ’ s L I F Eprogramme, eight conservation projects have been setup along the Loire and the Allier. The aim of these pro-jects is to conserve the river ’s biological wealth andthe quality of its water. At the same time, we stil l needto raise people ’s awareness to allow sustainable use ofthe river and its resources. Reconcil ing developmentwith nature conservation is another way of promotingbiodiversity.

Source: M. Rautkari, WWF.

BIODIVERSITY

116

CountriesEach country that has signedthe Rio Convention has under-taken to develop strategies andaction plans. As far as the law isconcerned, this also includesregulating access to genetic re-sources, intellectual propertyrights and technology transfers.From the economic point ofview, it is useful to consider bio-diversity in terms of the eco-nomic utility of its preservation.A shift in viewpoint of this kindwould highlight the importanceof biodiversity as a resource andlend it additional weight as aneconomic asset. From the clas-sic viewpoint of nature protec-tion, conservation measuresought to reflect the need to actat the core of each sector (ener-gy, agriculture, transport andplanning). The application ofgreen farming practices is verymuch a step in the right direc-tion. These reduce inputs andlessen the burden on ouraquifers and protect environ-ments like hedgerows, copsesand peat bogs that encouragewildlife. However, after years ofan agricultural policy that wasgeared towards self-sufficiencyin food, it won’t be easy tochange attitudes.

AEuropeAThe Community BiodiversityStrategy complements previousexisting initiatives in this fieldwhich already help to promotebiodiversity. Two instrumentsalready at the EU’s disposalsince some years ago are theBird and Habitats Directives,which have proved immenselyeffective from the conservationpoint of view. Europe is wellaware that it needs to shift itsemphasis in the near future to-wards harmonising data gath-ered in each Member State.Our understanding of biodiver-sity is even more vague thanthat of ‘nature’ in general.

Scientists and citizensGeneticists enjoy the almost di-vine power of manipulating livingmatter. They must be fully awareof the implications and must alsocomply with a rigorous set ofethics, despite the commercialor political pressures that mightbe exerted on them. Take themoratorium, for instance, thatthe scientific community placedon the manipulation of humangenes a few years ago. Althoughbiodiversity is a highly specialisedconcept, which scientists would

not like to see debased, its basicprinciples have already reached awide audience. In fact, this is afield in which all of us can act atour own level. We can manageour own micro-territory, for in-stance, planting indigenous vari-eties, gardening extensivelyrather than intensively or reject-ing aggressive fertilisers. Thechoices we make as consumersare also important. We can optfor local, organic or non-stan-dardised products and for rusticor old varieties. In short, thereare countless ways in which theordinary citizen can help protectbiodiversity through his or hereveryday actions.


Unite the protection of nature and extensive breeding.(‘Marais poitevin’, France)

BIODIVERSITY

117

CHEMICALS AND GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS

HEALTH

119

The complexity of chemicalproducts and the pace of theirdevelopment have not beenmatched in recent years by sys-tematic research into their en-vironmental impact. Seriousand undesirable effects have,however, been detected in bothhuman health and the environ-ment. Toxic products have beenfound in the air, water and soil,not to mention the food we eat.Between 1977 and 1987, acci-dents involving chemicals re-sulted in 5,000 recorded

deaths, 100,000 injuries and theevacuation of 620,000 people.

Care and foresightFortunately, relatively fewchemicals have such dire poten-tial. If they are used in a con-trolled and responsible way, thevast majority of citizens havenothing to fear. Nevertheless,more and more care is neededif we are to avoid horrific acci-dents such as those that oc-curred at Bhopal, India in 1984and Seveso, Italy in 1976. If dis-asters are to be prevented,there is an urgent need for ac-curate scientific modelling ofthe potential long-term impactof chemicals on health and theenvironment.

Genetic modificationThe latest gene technologymeans we can now transferinherited characteristics fromone organism to another. Thisproduces Genetically Modi-fied Organisms (GMOs) —bacteria, fungi, viruses, plants,insects , f i sh or mammals ,whose genetic material hasbeen artificially altered in or-der to increase resistance,yield or some other physicalproperty.

Once a GMO has been re-leased into nature (or broughtonto the market), it mightprove more successful in evo-lutionary terms than its naturalcounterparts. The repercus-sions of such competition areboth unpredictable and irre-versible.

Doomsday scenarios apart, itis plain that the benefits gene-tic engineering can bring to hu-mankind must be properlymanaged if health and the en-vironment are to be protec-ted.

hemicals — we can’t do without them!Our laboratories currently turn out no fewer than13 million synthetic compounds. Some mimic nat-ural substances while others are entirely artificial.Chemicals are used in every sector of the economy,from agriculture and food to textiles, paper andpharmaceuticals. Around 100,000 chemical prod-ucts are available on the European market and theindustry launches two to three hundred more ev-ery year.C

Facts and TrendsChemical and genetic time-bomb?

Hazard warning!Chemicals can be in-flammable, explosive or cor-rosive. They threaten us withallergies, poisoning, cancerand genetic mutation. Somedamage our reproductive,nervous and immune sys-tems. And chemicals can at-tack individuals, whole popu-lat ions and even futuregenerations.

GROUP OF CHEMICALS PER CENT

Industrial gases 1 %Dyes & Pigments 3 %Other inorganics 4 %Other organics 15 %Fertilizers 2 %Plastics 15 %Synthetic rubber 1 %Agrochemicals 3 %Paints & inks 6 %Pharmaceuticals 23 %Soaps & detergents 5 %Perfumes & cosmetics 7 %Other chemicals 13 %Man-made fibres 2 %


A more and more strict inspection onthe use of chemical substances

Sectorial analysis of the EU chemical in-dustry, 1997.

120

Prevention better than cure

Europe’s concern for this is-sue is evident from the speedwith which i t bu i l t up aformidable legislative arsenalto deal with hazardous sub-stances. Some observers viewdangerous chemicals as thegravest environmental threatof all.

Classification, labellingand packaging of

hazardous substancesA framework directive wasadopted in 1992 which coversall substances and preparationsdefined as explosive, oxidising,inflammable, toxic, corrosive,irritating, sensitising, carcino-genic, mutagenic, harmful to re-

production or environmentallydamaging. The directive also setthe new objective of evaluatingthe risks that chemicals pose tohuman beings and the environ-ment. Manufacturers and dis-tributors are now obliged toprovide the authorities with de-tailed technical information, tostate any undesirable effects,and to draw up safety instruc-tions and packaging and la-belling information.

At the same time, the directiveintroduced stricter standardsfor the packaging and labellingof hazardous substances. Pack-aging must be sufficiently robustto prevent leakage or corrosionduring handling, while labelshave to include the name of thesubstance, one or more warn-ing symbols, details of potentialhazards and safety recommen-dations.

It established new principles forevaluating the risks to which haz-ardous chemicals expose humanbeings and the environment.

Use and marketingThe use of hazardous sub-stances is governed by a 1976framework directive designedto protect the public and theenvironment from certain haz-ardous chemicals. The ap-pendix listed a number of prod-ucts which could no longer besold directly to the public andwhose use was now strictly lim-ited. Supplementary directiveshave restricted the use of prod-ucts like asbestos, mercury,cadmium and benzene (in toys)and have imposed labelling andpackaging requirements (par-ticularly for detergents, insecti-cides and perfumes).

Europe in action

Genetically modified organisms open upeconomic perspectives but create fearsas well.(Lab technician preparing cultures)


121

Import and exportRegulations adopted by the Com-munity in 1992 have created ajoint information system on im-ports and exports of certainchemicals that are banned orseverely restricted because oftheir potentially harmful impacton human health and the environ-ment. When a product is to betransported to a new destinationfor the first time, Member Statesare now obliged to inform the im-porting country of any potentialhazards no later than 30 days be-fore the date of export. The reg-ulations also oblige exporters ofhazardous chemicals to packageand label products destined forexport in the same way as thosesold on the Community market.

Plant protection products

A directive on the placing of plantprotection products on the mar-ket was adopted in July 1991 andcreated a harmonised system forapproving products in this field.Basically speaking, the directiveprevents plant protection prod-ucts from being sold unless theymeet certain specified ’quality’criteria, according to which theymust not have an unacceptableimpact on human beings, animalsor the environment.

Tackling geneticsThere is basically no limit to thepotential of genetic engineer-ing. In theory, a gene from anyspecies can be implanted in anyother. Genetic manipulation isalready used in agriculture andthe food industry, in pharma-ceuticals and decontaminantsand in the production of newmaterials and energy sources.

Europe has taken a precautionaryapproach, introducing legislationdesigned to protect its citizens’health and the environment whilesimultaneously creating a unifiedmarket for biotechnology. A di-rective on the contained use ofgenetically modified micro-organ-isms covers all activities relating toGMO’s, at both research and in-dustrial level. A directive on thedeliberate release into the envi-ronment of genetically modifiedorganisms requires environmen-tal evaluation and step-by-stepapproval for the dissemination ofGMO’s. The directive covers allsuch releases, whether small orlarge in scale, commercial or oth-erwise. Its main aim is risk man-agement. As with all other tech-nologies, the risks associated withgenetic engineering have to beidentified, evaluated and appro-priate measures taken. The direc-tive’s approach to risk manage-ment is based on the step-by-stepdevelopment and testing of neworganisms, the risk and impact ofwhich have to be analysed case bycase.

Genetics: what for?

The most common of the16 varieties of geneticallymodified plants cultivatedin Europe are turnips,maize, potatoes and sugarbeet. The added genes of-ten relate to herbicide re-sistance (50%), while inother cases they are con-cerned with the sterility ofmale plants.

The 1992 framework directive makes itobligatory to have very strict standardsfor the packaging and labelling of haz-ardous substances.


122

Hazardous substances:an international

concernIn 1984, the NRC (NationalResearch Council) in the Unit-ed States published statisticson the toxicity of around50,000 chemicals currently inuse in that country. Anotherstudy (USEPA, 1991) highlight-ed the fact that the majority ofsubstances discharged into wa-ter are industrial and chemicalin origin (60%). The NRC fi-gures also show how little infor-mation is available on the toxi-city of chemical substances.What information there is tendsto be limited to pesticides, cos-metics, medicines and foodadditives.

We can’t draw up a systematicand detailed review of the risksassociated with chemical prod-ucts without first collating allthe available information on ex-

isting substances. This is an im-mense task and so internationalprogrammes have been set upto gather data and coordinateresults. Programmes of thiskind are our primary source ofinformation on hazardous sub-stances.

A special legal register has beenset up to record data from 12countries and six internationalorganisations. In 1989, it con-tained 42,000 records on over8,000 substances.

Biotechnology and theEarth Summit

The problem of access to ge-netic resources was raised inthe text of the Rio BiodiversityConvention which sets out toregulate access to these re-sources, to protect intellectualproperty rights on living materi-als and to promote technologytransfers.

Biotechnology, Europeand its Member States

The Rio Biodiversity Conven-tion recognises the sovereignrights of States over their naturalresources but obliges them tocreate conditions to facilitate ac-cess to genetic resources for envi-ronmentally sound uses by otherparties.

As far as Europe is concerned,Member States must notify theCommunity of the release ofgenetically modified organ-isms. This duty represents aunique opportunity for track-ing deliberate GMO releasesfrom the very beginning. Inother words, Europe has beenquick to equip itself with apowerful instrument for con-trolling the risks associatedwith genetic engineering — aprerequisite for the environ-mental management of a l lbiotechnology.

The precautions taken show the risks ofcontamination, from the experimenterto the preparations and vice versa.



123

An inseparable trio: health, pollution and

the environmentWe have a thorough under-standing nowadays of the linkbetween health and concentra-tions of pathogenic substances.The relationship betweenhealth and everyday pollutionlevels is, by contrast, a gooddeal more complex. Many dis-eases are caused by a combina-tion of several factors — eco-nomic, social and l ifestyle(nutrition, smoking, etc.) —making it difficult to isolate thespecific environmental ele-ments.

We can, however, draw up along list of hazards known tocontribute to an unhealthy envi-ronment, including food-poi-soning, occupational diseases,allergies, smoking, cardiovascu-lar disease caused by an un-healthy lifestyle and cancers in-duced by radiation or asbestos.The European Community andthe World Health Organisation(WHO) have focused particularattention on air pollution, watercontamination and road acci-dents. ’Environmental’ factorslike this are responsible for asteadily growing number ofpublic health problems.

Air pollutionA large proportion of Europe’spopulation is affected by pollu-ted air, particularly in urbanareas. The number of respiratoryproblems (such as asthma and

bronchitis) rises sharply whenparticular exposure levels areexceeded. This can lead to hos-pitalisation and even death.

Water pollutionPolluted water, such as pollutedbathing water or insufficientquality of drinking water fromthe tap, may affect humanhealth in various ways. Whereasthese two issues are specificallytackled by the Bathing Waterand the Drinking Water Direc-tives, more needs to be done toprotect water as a resource.This is why the proposedFramework Water Directiveexpands the scope of protec-tion to all waters.

Road accidentsThese result in death, injury andlong-term incapacity for a largenumber of Europeans everyyear. So acute has this problembecome that road accidents arenow the principal cause ofdeath amongst 15-24 year-olds.In this respect, road safety hasto be seen as a public health is-sue. On the other hand, al-though accidents cannot beattributed directly to environ-mental factors, the problems(such as pollution) associatedwith transport affect both hu-man health and the environ-ment.

Air pollution, water contamina-tion and road accidents havenot been picked on because oftheir quantitative importance,

but because they provide deci-sion-makers with certain op-portunities. Preventative actionin these fields represents a ma-jor investment in public health.

ealth is a state of physical, mental and socialwell-being and not simply the absence of ill-ness or infirmity.’ (World Health Organisation(WHO).Huge advances in public health were made inthe 19th and early 20th century thanks to im-proved sanitation, working conditions andhygiene. In some cases, the introduction of afew hygiene measures had a spectacular im-pact on outbreaks of disease and other previ-ously intractable health problems.“H

Facts and Trends

Health and environment

Every day, 342 people are

killed on our roads and 6,229

injured. Road accidents de-

prive society of men and

women in the prime of life.

Others are condemned to

prolonged incapacity, families

suffer intensely and costs are

raised for everyone.

HEALTH

124

Air pollutionAir pollution is harmful to hu-man health — a problem that isparticularly acute in the coun-tries of Eastern Europe. It hasbeen calculated that WHOstandards for one or more at-mospheric pollutants are ex-ceeded at least once a year in70-80% of Europe’s 105 cities

with over 500,000 inhabitants.Millions of Europeans are af-fected, especially those living inurban areas. Some 15% of people in these areas sufferfrom asthma and 7 % from res-piratory problems. The asthmarate rises in the most pollutedcities to 23% of the population.

The Commission is preparingan action programme on pollu-tion-related diseases whichaims at collecting comparableinformation across Europe andbetter preventing the associa-ted risks.

In addition to causing acute orchronic respiratory conditions,air pollution also increases therisk of cancer. Asbestos, ben-

zene and soot have all beenidentified as cancer-inducing bythe International Agency for Re-search in Cancer, while dieseltoo is said to be ’probably’ car-cinogenic.

Technical advances and interna-tional conventions have helpedimprove air quality. Even so,WHO standards are still fre-quently exceeded, damagingpeople’s health in the process.Since 1972, the Community has

been acting to reduce pollutantemissions from diesel motors.Several other directives havefollowed, designed to reducesulphur content and lead pollu-tion. They cover all enginetypes and also target industryand incinerators. Road traffic isgrowing at such a rate, howev-er, that overall emissions con-tinue to rise in absolute terms,despite all these measures.

Contaminated waterConsuming water contaminat-ed by microbiological agentscan lead to a range of diseases,from gastro-enteritis to hepati-tis A. Despite a series of pre-ventative measures, cases of ill-ness caused by the drinking ofcontaminated water are re-ported every year. Meanwhile,bathing in contaminated watermay cause gastro-enteritis orskin and eye irritations.

Concentrations of agriculturalnitrates in groundwater oftenexceed the permitted rates forconsumption by children.

Many other dangerous sub-stances find their way into ourwater supplies, either acciden-tally or through dumping. Gen-erally speaking, however, chem-ical discharges are effectivelycontrolled and seem to haveless of an impact on Europeans’health than microbiological con-tamination. This is another field

Today, the most natural actions aren’twithout risks. (Fishing for shellfish -Brittany, France)

aaLeadaaLead has a harmful impact onhealth more or less through-out Europe. Statistics suggesta reduction in lead exposurein Western Europe, due pri-marily to the lowering of thelead content in petrol. Manypeople in Central and East-ern Europe, by contrast, aresuffering high levels of expo-sure, especially those wholive near heavy industrialplants. Lead retards chil-dren’s mental developmentand causes behavioural prob-lems. Some 400,000 childrenin Eastern Europe are cur-rently believed to be affectedthis way.

HEALTH

ir pollution, water contamination and road acci-dents can all be tackled at source, while appropri-ate technical measures can address the variousproblems they create.A

Europe in action

To tackle the problems at source

125

in which Europe has been ac-tively legislating for some timenow. An example is the ’Ni-trates Directive’ which seeks toreduce the level of agriculturalnitrates in groundwater and sur-face water by introducing an ac-tion programme and an agricul-tural code of good practice.Others are the ’Bathing WaterDirective’ and the ’Drinking Wa-ter Directive’, which fixes quali-ty standards for water destinedfor human consumption.

Roads killRoad accidents are an impor-tant public health issue, even ifthey are not a ’disease’ as such.It is impossible to ignore thespecific and grave harm they in-flict on people’s health, espe-cially that of young people:• No reduction is apparent in

either the frequency of acci-dents or their adverse impacton health;

• They are an economic bur-den on society, not only interms of material damage butalso of medical costs and thelong-term handicaps sufferedby certain victims;

• The health impact of road ac-cidents varies from one coun-try to another, irrespective ofeconomic performance. Thatmeans it ought to be possibleto reduce it.

Unblocking the road anetworka

Europe is pursuing a dual policyto deal with the problemscaused by transport. In the firstplace, it has introduced vehiclestandards designed to reducenoise and toxic emissions and toimprove safety. The Commis-sion is also involved in the cons-truction of trans-Europeantransport networks to relievepressure on traditional roadsand is encouraging a shift in de-mand towards alternativeforms of transport like high-speed trains and waterways.

Nutrition, cancer and AIDS.

European action in the healthfield is not limited to thesethree areas. Several directives,for instance, have been intro-duced to protect citizens fromradioactive emissions.

Cancer is the second most im-portant cause of death in Eu-rope. One person in four dies ofthe disease and the rate isgrowing in most MemberStates. This development hasprompted the European Unionto strengthen its commitment

to a number of cancer researchprogrammes. Another publichealth campaign in which Eu-rope is involved is the fightagainst AIDS, for which specificprogrammes have beenlaunched since 1991.

Europe is also active in the fieldof nutrition, restricting the useof certain additives, banninghormones, curtailing tobaccoand alcohol advertising and reg-ulating pharmaceutical pro-ducts. Meanwhile, the EU iscommitted to reducing the riskof bacterial or chemical poison-ing (heavy metals, pesticides,etc.).

The first European directive toaddress the issue of food hy-giene was issued in 1964. Eu-rope ’s current approach isbased on the following princi-ples:• Preventing any contamination

of fresh meat, dairy products,eggs, fish, etc.;

• Fixing the maximum permis-sible concentrations of cer-tain residual chemical prod-ucts;

• Inspecting the production,processing and packaging offood products in both Mem-ber States and in countriesexporting to the EU.

Roadcrashes constitute a major prob-lem to public health.

HEALTH

126

The worldDiseases don’t recognise nation-al frontiers and economic andcultural globalisation is promot-ing the spread of pathogens. Sev-eral international organisationsare devoted to health, includingthe International Agency for Re-search in Cancer, the Red Crossand the Red Crescent. Bestknown, however, is probably theWorld Health Organisation, aUN body founded in 1948.

The WHO is known by the pu-blic for its work to combat infec-tious diseases like malaria, lep-rosy, diphtheria, tuberculosisand hepatitis in developing coun-tries. It has a regional bureau inCopenhagen called the Euro-pean Centre for Environmentand Health (ECEH), which wasset up in 1991. The Centre wasrecently commissioned to drafta report entitled ‘Concern forEurope’s Tomorrow’ in collabo-ration with the European Envi-ronment Agency. The purposewas to evaluate environmentalproblems with health implica-tions, to calculate the Europeanpopulation’s exposure to thesefactors and to measure the ex-tent of their impact. This jointECEH and EEA initiative is a re-markable example of coopera-

tion between the health and en-vironment fields. ‘Concern forEurope’s Tomorrow’ will pro-vide government and NGOswith the fullest possible informa-tion on which to base their deci-sion-making in these areas.

The ECEH’s remit also includesthe development of technicalcooperation programmes, pri-marily with countries in EasternEurope. These set out to reducethe health problems caused byenvironmental hazards.

Two Inter-ministerial Confe-rences have already been organ-ised by WHO-Europe in 1989(Frankfurt) and in 1994 (Helsin-ki) which have resulted respec-tively in the adoption of an Euro-pean Charter on Environmentand Health and of an Environ-ment and Health Action Plan forEurope.

The next Conference will takeplace in London in June 1999 andshould give orientations for newactions in the next millennium.As previously, the EuropeanCommission is participating inthe preparation of this event.

Europe and its Member States

When it comes to health, Euro-pean institutions do not at-tempt to take the place of indi-vidual Member States or theirrespective health ministers,which support a great manypublic and private bodies, in-cluding institutes of hygiene andepidemiology, national childhealth agencies and publichealth laboratories. Meanwhile,a Standing Veterinary Commit-tee, made up of representativesof each Member State, advisesthe Commission on matters re-lating to its specialist field andon any emergency measuresthat might be required. Thecommittee also gives permis-sion for imports from thirdcountries and withdraws itagain whenever necessary.

The European Communitydoes, however, oversee re-search and prevention pro-grammes for cancer, AIDS (theEuropean Centre for the Epi-demiological Monitoring ofAIDS is located in Paris) anddrug dependency.


The European Community supervisesresearch and prevention programs inthe medical sector.(Blood analysis)

HEALTH

127

NATURAL RESOURCES

129

Fresh water, forests and agricul-tural products are all renew-able, provided they are notconsumed faster than they canregenerate. Fossil fuels andminerals, by contrast, are finite.Although the effects of overex-ploitation tend to be felt locally,economic globalisation and in-ternational trade in natural re-sources make this a planetaryissue.

Food resourcesFood, water and forests are allrenewable, but only up to apoint. The ’production’ of fish,for instance, has grown fasterthan Europe’s population. Theglobal catch has risen from 22million tons a year in 1950 to100 million tons now. Averagefish consumption in 1950 was 9kg per person, compared to 19kg by the beginning of the1990s. Nevertheless, the fishingindustry has fallen into declineas the sea can no longer sustainexploitation at this level.

Cereal production tripled be-tween 1950 and 1990 as agri-culture grew steadily more in-tensive (producing more onless land). Output increasedfaster than the population,which meant some Europeanagricultural land had to be tak-en out of cultivation. To saynothing of the ecological impli-cations of these new agricultur-al practices, which are synony-mous with fertilisers, pesticidesand soil depletion. Nor dothese statistics reflect the im-mense regional disparities thatexist. Many countries have yetto achieve self-sufficiency infood.

The earth: keeping the balance

The earth itself is a fragile inher-itance that we must protectfrom abuse. The pollution gen-erated by agriculture, transportand industry, for instance, af-fects the balance of the bio-sphere far beyond the areas inwhich it is generated. As we ap-proach the year 2000, humanitycan no longer afford to wasteresources, whether they areminerals, food, water, our natu-ral heritage or the space inwhich we live and work. Theglobalisation of the economymakes this a planetary issue.

he earth is commonly represented as humanity’sbountiful mother, nourishing us with her goodness.In reality, the relationship is very different. Ourplanet is not a horn of plenty — the resources it of-fers are limited by its capacity to renew them.T

Facts and Trends

To be taken in moderationWater and forests

- Europe has 8% of theworld’s renewable freshwater resources but is re-sponsible for 15% of con-sumption.

- Europe (not including theformer USSR) had an extra1.9 million hectares of for-est and woodland in 1990compared to 1981, butmost of this increase is dueto commercial afforesta-tions and few natural foreststill remain.

Drinking water is a vital resource, frag-ile and limited.

NATURAL RESOURCES

130

The Fifth Environmental ActionProgramme sets out Europe’sstrategy for the coming years. Itis primarily concerned with ournatural resources and their sus-tainability. The programme fo-cuses on:- better management of re-

sources by industry and morerigorous common standardsfor manufacturing processesand consumer information;

- tax breaks to promote en-hanced energy efficiency andthe development of renewableenergy sources;

- conservation of natural re-sources by the agricultural sec-tor, first and foremost by deal-ing with the problem ofnitrates and pesticides.

A legal framework for renewable resources

Europe’s common fishing policyhas shown how measures canbe taken to protect natural re-sources. It sets out to achievethe conservation and balancedexploitation of our fish stocks.

Forestry activities have gene-rally been growing over the pasttwenty years, during whichtime the area of the planet co-vered by forest and woodlandhas decreased by around 6 %.Once again, the figures dis-guise a number of sharp re-gional disparities. Forestationin the northern temperatezones has increased by 5 %,thanks to reforestation and a10 % increase in the forestedarea of the Europe of the 15.Tropical rainforests, by con-trast, shrank by 50% between1981 and 1990.

Europe in action

Objectives and resolutions

’Green’ label to protect our natural resources

A European eco-label will be awarded to products that do not pol-lute and which make sparing use of raw materials. Kitchen roll andtoilet paper, for instance, will be able to show the eco-label if they:- use fewer non-renewable resources;- limit the spread of pollutants in the air and water; - can be readily recycled.The eco-label will help consumers to choose everyday productsthat make more sparing use of our natural resources

The limitation of the exploitation of fishstocks is a difficult European stake.(Fishing in the North Sea)

NATURAL RESOURCES

131

European activities to encour-age the rational exploitation ofour forests are limited at pre-sent to research and the ex-change of information. Legisla-tion has, however, beenintroduced to:- protect Europe’s forests from

atmospheric pollution,- create a European forestry in-

formation and communicationsystem.

Although tropical deforestationdoesn’t have a direct, short-termimpact on the European envi-ronment, it nevertheless poses a

general long-term threat. Eu-rope itself contributes to defo-restation through its demand forwood, although imports of thevarieties in question have beencut by half over the past 20 years.The Community is currentlypreparing new rules to meet theobjectives set out at Rio.

The Community is also con-cerned about the impact ofagriculture on soil and water re-serves. Its main goal in this areais to:- protect soil whenever sewage

sludge is used in agriculture,- prevent water being polluted

by agricultural nitrates.

Nature protection begins withthe study and classification of

natural habitats and wildlife.There is no shortage of localdata, but this is not alwayscomparable at European levelbecause of a lack of compatibil-ity. To deal with this situation,the Community has set up in-ventory programmes to takestock of our natural heritagebased on a common nomencla-ture of European natural habi-tats. This is also the first steptowards the creation of theNatura 2000 network whichwill give urgently needed pro-tection to important Europeannatural sites.

Don’t remove more then renewable re-sources allow.(Wood stockings in Finland)

NATURAL RESOURCES

132

The worldThe globalisation of economiesand trade has made natural re-sources an international issue.Food resources are a case inpoint. Although world foodproduction is growing, thereare acute regional differences.The GATT organisation set outto liberalise and harmonise im-port controls and to give all itsmember nations the chance totrade fairly. The process wasblocked for a considerable timeby disagreements on agricul-ture between the EuropeanCommunity, the United Statesand a group of countries thatsupported the total abolition ofagricultural subsidies. The con-clusion of the Uruguay Roundled to GATT’s replacement bythe new World Trade Organisa-tion.

Europe and its Member States

The European Community hasalready made changes to its

agricultural policy with less em-phasis on subsidising produc-tion and more on environmen-tally friendly farming practices.

Member States are helping toestablish the new support sys-tem by setting up local pro-grammes that reflect the diver-sity of Europe’s environment,natural conditions and agricul-tural structures. Farmers arebeing compensated for lost rev-enues arising from reducedproduction and/or increasedcosts and for their role in im-proving the environment.

Economic globalisation also hasimplications for non-renewableraw materials. For the mostpart, the countries of Europehave long since exhausted theirown fuel and mineral reservesand are now dependent on oth-er countries for their supplies(with all the geopolitical andstrategic problems that can en-tail). But reserves throughoutthe world are finite, too. Explo-ration for new reserves and theeking out of existing ones by re-cycling simply delays the in-evitable. Europe recognised

this fact when it introducednew, more efficient energymanagement measures afterthe First Oil Crisis.

More rational town and country planning

Changes in land-use often causeimmense ecological upheaval.Human activities affect the en-vironment both directly (mines,dikes, canalisation of rivers) andindirectly (urbanisation, inten-sive agriculture). They can alsotransform landscapes by defor-estation, desertification and soilerosion. Many European coun-tries have been aware of theseissues for many years and havecreated the tools they need tomanage land-use in a rationalway.

Taking responsability

The future will be ecological or it willnot.(Cultivation of sunflowers in south-eastFrance)

NATURAL RESOURCES

133

CHRONOLOGY

GLOSSARY

MAIN REFERENCES

134

Sources

SOURCES of all illustrations andphotographs

Eureka slideCover, 7, 9, 12, 14, 22, 23, 26, 27, 29, 31, 32, 33,35, 36, 37, 39, 40, 41, 42, 44, 45, 51, 52, 53, 54,55, 56, 59, 60, 62up, 63, 64, 65, 66, 70, 71, 72, 74,78, 80, 81, 82, 84, 86, 87, 89, 91, 97, 98, 99, 100,106, 109, 112, 113, 114, 124, 129, 131, 132

Eurostat20up, 21

Spectrum Color Library20down, 73, 83

Benelux Press30, 57, 75, 102, 107, 117, 119down, 121, 122,126, 127

Frank Spooner Pictures46, 69, 88, 130

CEC, 1992 b.49

IPPC61, 62down

WMO – EEA, 199964up

EMEP – EEA, 199968

CE Michael St Maur, Sheil79, 116

David Townend, the EnvironmentalPicture Library85

Mercay, WWF94

Stock Imagery96

EUR13258100

De Cort et al, 1990101

Dobris103

J.S. Grove, WWF105

W. Moeller, WWF110up

CEFIC, 1991119up

Science Photo Library120

CE125

CHRONOLOGY

OPEN HERE

135

CHRONOLOGY CHRONOLOGY

CHRONOLOGY CHRONOLOGY

1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999WORLD EVENTS

EVOLUTION OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

ECOLOGICAL ACCIDENTS

EUROPEAN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION

• End of the SecondWorld War

• Marshall Plan for theeconomic rebuildingof Europe

• Ratification of theSingle European Act

• Spain and Portugaljoin (the Twelve)

• Fourth Europeanelections with universal suffrag

• Ungass• Earth Summit• Rio 5 Years

• Greece joins (the Ten)

• Second Europeanelections

• Stockholm Confe-rence. Start of greenpolitics and ecologi-cal development,based on the sustai-nable use of naturaland human resources on both alocal and regionalscale.

• Merger of the exe-cutives of the threecommunities(ECSC, EEC, Euratom)

• Signature of theTreaties of Rome,creating the Euro-pean EconomicCommunity (EEC)and the EuropeanAtomic EnergyCommunity - EURATOM.

• The Six

• Entry into force ofthe treaty creatingBenelux

• Creation of theCouncil of Europe,based in Strasbourg

• Signature of theTreaty of Paris, insti-tuting the EuropeanCoal and SteelCommunity - ECSC.

• Recycling standardsfor packaging waste(D94/62).

• Reform of EU water policy• The Auto-Oil programme (fuel

standards and car emissions)• Initiatives for a better implementa-

tion of EU Environmental law• Directive on Ambient Air Quality

Assessment and management(96/62)

• Second ‘Life’ programme (1996-99)• IPC Directive: integrated pollution

prevention and control (D96/61)

• Commission proposals- Framework

Directive on water,- Directive on Landfill

of waste- Directive on

end-oflife vehicles • Strategy to combat

acidification• A new Drinking Water

Directive

• European Year ofthe Environment

• Fourth Europeanenvironmental pro-gramme (1987-92)

• Directive relating tothe quality of drin-king water(D80/778)

• Third European en-vironmental pro-gramme (1982-86)

• ‘Seveso’ Directiveon the risks of ma-jor accidents(D82/501)

• Second report onthe state of the environment

• Directive on theconservation of wildbirds (79/409)

• Second Europeanenvironmental pro-gramme (1977-81)

• First report on theState of the Envi-ronment

• Directive on thequality of surfacewater (D75/442)

• Directive on waste(D75/442)

• Directive regardingthe quality of ba-thing water(D76/160)

• First European envi-ronmental program-me (1973-76)

• The environmentallegislative arsenalbased on articles100 and 235 (1973-87).

• Relative standardsfor chemical pro-ducts (D67/548)

• Directive on the ba-sic savety standardsin radiation protec-tion

• First European‘Life’ programme (1991-95)

• Pan-Europeanconference onthe environment,Dobris - Castle,(Prague)

• Creation of the Eu-ropean Environmen-tal Agency. Effectiveend 1993.

• Regulation on environ-mental labelling(R92/880)

• Fourth report on the sta-te of the environment

• Directive regarding thepollution of the air byozone (D92/72)

• Directive on conserva-tion of natural habitatand of wild fauna and flo-ra (D92/43)

• Altener Programme• EMAS Directive -

environmental management and audit(D1836/93)

• Pan-European confe-rence on the environ-ment - Lucerne

• Fifth European envi-ronmental programme(1993-2000)

• Maastricht - Treatyon European Union

• The environment isincluded in articles 2and 130 R.

•Creation of the Eu-ropean MonetarySystem

•First European elections

• Rio : UN Conferenceon Environment andDevelopment.

• Fifth Europeanelections

• Brundtland Report fromthe World Commissionon Environment and De-velopment. Humanity isheading for an ecological disaster.Sounded alarm bellswhich were to result,five years later, in theRio Conference.

• Report of the Clubof Rome, entitled‘Limits to Growth’

• Implementation ofthe Common Agricultural Policy(CAP)

• United Kingdom,Ireland and Den-mark join (the Nine).

• Third Europeanelections

• Reform of EU strategy on waste

• Pan-Europeanconference on theenvironment - Sofia.Publication of theDobris Report

• Exxon Valdez, Alaska, 40,000tonnes of oil - oil spill

• Major flooding inEurope

• Chernobyl - major nuclear disaster

• Sandoz, Bâle - 30 tonnes of chemical products are discharged into the Rhine

• Amoco Cadiz(220,000 t), France,oil spill

• Seveso, Italy, chemi-cal accident

• European Summit inParis. The environ-ment becomes apolitical reality.

• Los Afalques, Spain - roadtraffic disaster

• Three Mile Island (USA) - nuclear accident

• Unification of Germany

• Completion of the European Single Market

• Commission White Pa-per on growth, competitiveness and em-ployment

• Assessment of theeffects on the envi-ronment (D85/337)

• Treaty of Amsterdam- signed 1997- entry into force — May 1999

• Entry of Austria,Finland and Sweden(the Fifteen) • Aarhus Convention

on access toinformation aboutenvironmentalmatters

137

• TERMEXPLANATION

• acid depositacid atmospheric pollutants whichare deposited in dry or wet form

• acid rainrain containing a high acid concen-tration (sulphurous, sulphuric, ni-tric) caused by air pollution, whichdamages historic buildings and poi-sons plants and animals

• acidificationchange in an environment’s naturalchemical balance caused by an in-crease in the concentration ofacidic elements

• afforestationcreation of a forest on land thathas not previously, at least in re-cent times, had a significant treepopulation

• antimonychemical element, brittle, silvercoloured, similar to arsenic

• aquifersubterranean body of water fillingthe spaces in porous and perme-able rock and resting on an imper-meable layer

• asbestofibrous natural product used in as-bestos cement, brakes and clutch-es, insulators and fireproof textiles.Asbestos is carcinogenic

• autochton speciesspecies originating from the regionin which it lives

• avifaunatotality of bird-life in a given region

• benzenecolourless liquid, insoluble in waterand inflammable, which is added topetrol as an antiknock agent.

• biocenosis

totality of living organisms, animaland plant, which occupy the samegeographical area (biotope)

• biocide

chemical product intended for thedestruction of living organismsharmful to agriculture

• biodiversity

the variability among living organ-isms from all sources including, in-

ter alia, terrestrial, marine andother aquatic ecosystems and theecological complexes of which theyare part; this includes diversitywithin species, between speciesand of ecosystems

• biological diversity

see biodiversity

• biomass

total mass of living matter, animaland plant, present at a given placeand a given time. Expressed as dryweight

• biomass fuel

plant-based fuel

• biosphere

part of the planet earth’s spherewhere organisms live

• biotechnology

any technological application thatuses biological systems, living or-ganisms, or derivatives thereof, tomake or modify products or pro-cesses for specific use

• biotope

well-defined geographical area,characterised by specific ecologicalconditions (soil, climate, etc.),which physically supports the or-ganisms that live there (bioceno-sis)

• boreal

eco-region of the Northern hemi-sphere of planet Earth situated be-tween the Arctic and the sub-tro-pical regions

• cadmium

shiny white metal, product of zincmining, used to make yellow pig-ments and miniature batteries.Toxic

• catalytic converter

vehicle exhaust system which usescatalysis (a process for alteringthe speed of a chemical reaction)to reduce the emission of pollu-tants

• chemical buffer

solution or substance which main-tains a constant rate of acidity

• chlorofluorocarbon

gas still used in some aerosols,fridges, air-conditioning units andfire-extinguishers and blamed fordepleting the ozone layer

• composting

biological process encouraging thefermentation of a variety of organicwaste to obtain compost, a mixrich in minerals and organic matter

• crop rotation

the sequence of crops to be grownon the same piece of land

• decibel

unit of sound measurement

• defoliation

natural or disease-related sheddingof leaves

• deforestation

human destruction of forests

• degasification

mechanical or chemical extractionof gases dissolved in water

• dioxin

by-product of the manufacture ofcertain pesticides. Highly toxic andpersistent

• drainage basin

natural geographical regiondrained by one or more rivers andtheir tributaries

• eco-label

ecological label awarded to a prod-uct that does not harm the envi-ronment

• eco-product

product designed and manufac-tured in a way that respects theenvironment

• ecosystem

a dynamic complex of plants, ani-mal and micro-organism communi-ties and their non-living environ-ment interacting as a functionalunit

• effluent

in ecological terms, any liquid pro-duced by an industrial process

• endemic

description of a living species con-fined to a particular region

• environmental impact assessment

study which systematically des-cribes and evaluates the environ-mental consequences of a develop-ment project (road, factory, etc.)

• environmental label

see eco-label

Glossary of terms used

GLOSSARY

138

• eutrophication

accumulation of organic matter inwater, resulting in deoxygenation(reduction in the water’s oxygencontent)

• fallow

the status of a piece of arable landtaken temporarily out of cultiva-tion

• fauna

totality of animal species presentwithin a specific biotope

• fermentation

breakdown of organic matter bythe action of enzymes secreted bymicroscopic organisms

• fertilisation

operation designed to maintain orimprove the fertility of a soil by theaddition of fertiliser

• flora

totality of plant species present ina region or biotope

• food chain

succession of living organisms,each of which feeds on others ac-cording to a fixed order

• fossil energy

see fossil fuel

• fossil fuel

natural carbon substance pro-duced by the breakdown of organicmatter buried in layers deep in theearth’s crust. Forms includegaseous fuels (natural gas), liquids(oil, asphalt) and solids (coal)

• gene

segment of the deoxyribonucleicacid (DNA) molecule located at aspecific point of a chromosome, res-ponsible for determining an inher-ited characteristic

• genetic

scientific study of the laws ofheredity

• genetic engineering

totality of techniques for modify-ing the genetic programme of cer-tain living cells (bacteria) to en-able them to manufacture usefulsubstances, the manufacture ofwhich would be difficult or impos-sible

• geological layer

homogeneous sedimentary deposit

• greenhouse gasgas (carbon dioxide, nitrogen diox-ide, methane, water vapour, etc.)which contributes to the green-house effect, i.e. the heating up ofthe lower atmosphere by trappingsolar rays

• ground covertotality of small herbaceous andwoody plants which cover an areaof soil, protecting it from tempera-ture variations and erosion

• groundwaterlayer of subterranean water, gene-rally close to the surface, whichsupplies wells and springs

• habitatecological setting in which an or-ganism, species, population orgroup of species lives

• half-life

period in which a physical or bio-logical quantity reaches half of itsinitial value

• heavy metal

metal which becomes toxic in highconcentrations. Heavy metals canaccumulate within the food chain(lead, cadmium, mercury, etc.)

• humus

organic matter formed from plantand animal debris or other organicsubstances that collect on or in thesoil

• hydro-electricity

electricity generated by harnessingthe hydraulic energy of rivers andwaterfalls

• hydrocarbon

organic compound made up of car-bon and hydrogen. Oil and naturalgas are basically hydrocarbon com-pounds

• industrial wastewaters

water carrying wastes and efflu-ents produced by industrial plants

• inputelement used to produce a good

• insularisationgeographical isolation

• land use planningorganisation of space in such a wayas to improve living conditions, en-courage economic developmentand make optimum use of naturalresources without disrupting natu-ral ecosystems

• leached

description of soil into which waterhas carried soluble or colloidal sub-stances

• lead-poisoning

toxic effects of lead or lead salts

• lifecycle

the total life of a product, frommanufacture to final disposal

• liquid manure

natural fertiliser based on animaldung and containing a largeamount of water

• methane

colourless gas given off by rottingmaterials. The main constituent ofnatural gas

• microclimate

climate peculiar to a small area,dependent on local vegetation, mi-crorelief, etc.

• monoculture

cultivation of a single plant variety

• mutagenic

description of a chemical or physi-cal agent capable of causing muta-tions within a species

• mutation

sudden and permanent change inthe structure of a gene or chromo-some. May occur spontaneously ormay be caused by the action of oneor more mutagens

• nitrate

the main source of nitrogen forplants

• nitrogenous fertiliser

fertiliser containing nitrogen in theform of nitrates or ammonia

• non-waste technology

technology causing little pollution

• nutrient

element that can be assimilated byan organism without being trans-formed by the digestive system. Adistinction is made betweenmacronutrients like calcium, nitro-gen and phosphorous and micronu-trients like copper, zinc and man-ganese

• ocean floor

solid layer located at the bottom ofoceans and seas. Comprises theoceanic crust covered with a thicklayer of sediment

GLOSSARY

139

• offshore exploitationoperation of an oil well located offthe coast

• overgrazingexcessive grazing which preventsthe regeneration of undergrowth,reduces the productive potential ofplant species and sometimes en-courages soil degradation througherosion

• ozonesimple gaseous compound whichforms a protective layer in the up-per atmosphere shielding the earthfrom certain forms of solar radia-tion. In the lower atmosphere, bycontrast, ozone is a pollutant

• pathogenicdescription of an agent that in-duces illness

• peat bogacidic peat environment typical ofwetlands. Peat bogs are colonisedby characteristic low vegetation in-cluding moss, rushes and heather

• percolationflow of rain or irrigation water (per-colate) through cracks in the soilunder the influence of gravity

• pesticidechemical compound designed todestroy animal or plant pests. Maybe an insecticide, herbicide orfungicide. Pesticides accumulate inthe food chain, contaminating foodsupplies and groundwater

• phosphorusmineral vital to the growth of livingorganisms

• phytoplanktontotality of single or multi-celledplant organisms which live sus-pended in sea and freshwater

• pisciculturalconcerned with fish-farming

• precautionary principlethe principe according to which thenecessary measures should be tak-en once a sufficient level of proba-bility is reached, even in the ab-sence of scientific certainty

• purificationoperation to remove impuritiesfrom wastewater

• radioactive cloudcloud of solid particles formed inthe wake of a nuclear detonation

or the emission of radioactive sub-stances into the atmosphere fol-lowing an explosion at a nuclearpower plant

• radioactivity

spontaneous emission of radia-tion, normally alpha or beta parti-cles often accompanied by gammarays, from the nucleus of an (un-stable) isotope. As a result of thisemission the radioactive isotope istransformed into the isotope ofanother element which can alsobe radioactive (it decays). Ulti-mately, as the result of one morephases of radioactivity decay, astable (non-radioactive) endproduct is formed.

• reforestation

the reconstitution of a forest

• renewable energy

energy, the consumption of whichdoes not reduce natural resourcesbecause it is based on elementsthat replenish themselves natural-ly (biomass, solar, wind, geother-mal and hydro power)

• river contract

agreement between all relevantpublic and private bodies concern-ing the natural functions of water-ways, their maintenance and use(sanitary, cultural, economic andrecreational)

• salmonellosis

infection caused by bacteria(salmonellae) including typhoidand paratyphoid fevers and gastro-enteritis

• sediment

granular deposit left by water, windand other agents of erosion

• seismicity

number and intensity of earthtremors in a given region and peri-od of time

• silty

describes a high content of silt.Silt is a form of earth with theconsistency of flour - light butsticky, somewhere between sandand clay

• silvicultural

concerning forestry

• silviculture

totality of rules and techniques al-lowing the cultivation, mainte-nance and exploitation of a forest

• smogtype of fog caused by the atmo-spheric emission of gaseous or ve-hicular pollutants

• soil amendmentoperation designed to improve thephysical properties of a soil — sub-stance added to soil for this pur-pose

• solventliquid used to dissolve an activesubstance

• spawning groundplace where fish come together toreproduce

• speciestotality of like individuals whichtransmit their likeness from onegeneration to another

• sprayingthe regular spraying of a substanceor product on the surface of the soil(fertiliser, wastewater) or on a cropor tree population (pesticides)

• stratospherepart of the earth’s atmosphere lo-cated at an altitude between 12and 50 km. The temperature of thestratosphere rises with altitude

• suspended solidsmicroscopic particles of matter inwater. Can be removed by settle-ment or filtration

• thermal barrierbarrier of a thermal character. forexample, a thermal barrier limitsthe geographical expansion of aspecies

• to clear, to grubto clear a piece of land by removingall the undergrowth, either by up-rooting or burning

• wastewater treatment planttotality of installations and devicesused to purify wastewaters and in-dustrial effluents to allow them tobe reused or released into the envi-ronment

• wastewatersgeneric term covering householdeffluent, residues and drainwater

• weatheringtotality of phenomena affecting theearth’s relief (ice, wind, rain)

GLOSSARY

140

• ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIA-TIONS : EXPLANATION

• ACP : African, Caribbean andPacific (countries)

• AMAP : Arctic Monitoring andAssessment Programme

• ANC : Acid NeutralisingCapacity

• AQG : Air Quality Guidelines (ofWHO)

• BaP : Benzo(a)pyrene

• BOD : Biochemical OxygenDemand

• CAP : Common AgriculturalPolicy (EU)

• CFC : Chlorofluorocarbon

• CFP : Common Fisheries Policy(EU)

• CH4 : Methane

• CLP : Chlorine Loading Potential

• CO2 : Carbon Dioxide

• COD : Chemical OxygenDemand

• CORINE : CO-oRdination ofINformation on theEnvironment (CEC)

• CSD : Commission onSustainable Development (UN)

• DDT :Dichloryldiphenyltrichorethane

• DG : Directorate General ofEuropean Commission

• DMS : Dimethylsulphide

• DNA : Desoxyribonucleic acid

• EASOE : European ArcticStratospheric OzoneExperiment

• EBCC : European Bird CensusCouncil

• EBRD : European Bank forReconstruction andDevelopment

• EC : European Community

• ECCC : European CoastalConservation Conference

• ECE : Economic Commissionfor Europe (UN)

• ECEH : European Centre forEnvironmental Health (WHO)

• EEA(-TF) : EuropeanEnvironment Agency (TaskForce, CEC DG XI)

• EFTA : European Free TradeAssociation

• EIA : Environmental ImpactAssessment

• EINECS : European Inventoryof Existing Chemical Substances(CEC)

• EOAC : EuropeanOrnithological Atlas Committee

• ESA : Environmentally SensitiveArea

• EU : European Union

• FAO : Food and AgricultureOrganization (UN)

• FCCC : Framework Conventionon Climate Change (UN)

• FGD : Flue-Gas Desulphurisation

• FOREGS : Forum of EuropeanGeological Surveys

• gamma-HCH : Lindane (organochlorine pesticide)( = gamma hexachlorohexane)

• GATT : General Agreement onTariffs and Trade

• GDP : Gross Domestic Product

• GEF : Global EnvironmentalFacility

• GESAMP : Group of Experts onthe Scientific Aspects of MarinePollution

• GFCM : General FisheriesCouncil for the Mediterranean

• GMO : Genetically ModifiedOrganism

• GMP : Gross Material Product

• GNP : Gross National Product

• GWP : Global Warming Potential

• H2O2 : Hydrogen peroxide

• HCFC : Hydrochloroflurocarbon

• HGWP : Halocarbon GlobalWarming Potential

• IAEA : International AtomicEnergy Agency (UN)

• ICBP : International Council forBird Preservation (now BirdLifeInternational)

• ICES : International Council forthe Exploration of the Sea

• IEA : International EnergyAgency (UN)

• IPCS : International Programmeon Chemical Safety (WHO,UNEP, ILO)

• MAP : Mediterranean ActionPlan

• MPC : Maximum permissibleconcentration

• MSY : Maximum sustainable yield

• NGO : Non-GovernmentalOrganisation

• NMVOC : Non-MethaneVolatile Organic Compound

• N2O : Dinitrogenoxide(traditionally called nitrousoxide)

• NO : Nitrogen oxide(traditionally called nitric oxide)

• NO2 : Nitrogen dioxide

• NOx : Nitrogen oxides (non-specific, including NO and NO2)

• OECD : Organization forEconomic Cooperation andDevelopment

• OH : Hydroxyl

• ODP : Ozone DepletionPotential

• PAH : Polycyclic (or polynuclear)Aromatic Hydrocarbon

• PAN : Peroxyacetylnitrate

• PCB : Polychlorinated biphenyl

• PCDD : Polychlorinateddibenzodioxin

• PCDF : Polychlorinateddibenzofuran

• POCP : Photochemical OzoneCreation Potential

• POP : Persistent OrganicPollutants

• SO2 : Sulphur dioxide

• TOE : Tonnes of Oil Equivalent

• UNCED : United NationsConference on Environmentand Development (Rio deJaneiro, June 1992, ’the Earthsummit’)

• Unesco : United NationsEducational Scientific andCultural Organization

• USSR : Union of Soviet SocialistRepublics

• VOC : Volatile OrganicCompound

• WHO : World HealthOrganization (UN)

GLOSSARY

141

• 5th Environmental ActionProgramme

CE. Brussels, 1993 OfficialJournal of the EuropeanCommunities C138 p1-98

• Towards sustainability TheEuropean Commission’sprogress report and actionplan on the fifth programmeof policy and action inrelation to the environmentand sustainabledevelopment.

European Communities,Luxembourg, 1997.

• Environment in theEuropean Union - 1995Report for the review of theFifth Environmental ActionProgramme

EEA, Copenhagen, 1995, 151p

• Europe’s Environment - TheDobris Assessment EEA, Copenhagen, 1995 dl,676p.

• Europe’s Environment -Statistical Compendium forthe Dobris Assessment Eurostat, Luxembourg, 1995.

• Europe’s Environment - TheDobris Assessment - Anoverview EEA, Copenhagen, 1994 dl., 22p.

• Europeans and theEnvironment in 1995(Eurobarometer 43.1 bis) DGXI, Brussels, 1995, 84p

• Environmental Policy of the EuropeanCommunities, 2nd ed.Kluwer Law, The Hague, 1995

• Europe in Figures

Eurostat, Luxembourg, 4th ed.,1995, 425p.

• Environment and Health in Europe

EEA/WHO, 1996

• Sources

The texts of the various ECDirectives and regulations arepublished in the Official Journalof the European Communities.They are also available on theCELEX database.

• For further details contact yourlocal office of the EuropeanCommission or one of the salesoffices mentioned at the back ofthe book.

MAIN REFERENCES

142

European Communities -Commission


ACTION FOR EUROPE’S ENVIRONMENT

Luxembourg : Office for Official Publicationsof the European Communities

1999

142 pp.21.0 x 29.7 cm

ISBN 92-828-7585-7

Price (excluding VAT) in Luxembourg :

EUR 10

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

Jean De LannoyAvenue du Roi 202/Koningslaan 202B-1190 Bruxelles/BrusselTél. (32-2) 538 43 08Fax (32-2) 538 08 41E-mail: [email protected]: http://www.jean-de-lannoy.be

La librairie européenne/De Europese BoekhandelRue de la Loi 244/Wetstraat 244B-1040 Bruxelles/BrusselTél. (32-2) 295 26 39Fax (32-2) 735 08 60E-mail: [email protected]: http://www.libeurop.be

Moniteur belge/Belgisch StaatsbladRue de Louvain 40-42/Leuvenseweg 40-42B-1000 Bruxelles/BrusselTél. (32-2) 552 22 11Fax (32-2) 511 01 84

DANMARK

J. H. Schultz Information A/SHerstedvang 10-12DK-2620 AlbertslundTlf. (45) 43 63 23 00Fax (45) 43 63 19 69E-mail: [email protected]: http://www.schultz.dk

DEUTSCHLAND

Bundesanzeiger Verlag GmbHVertriebsabteilungAmsterdamer Straße 192D-50735 KölnTel. (49-221) 97 66 80Fax (49-221) 97 66 82 78E-Mail: [email protected]: http://www.bundesanzeiger.de

ELLADA/GREECE

G. C. Eleftheroudakis SAInternational BookstorePanepistimiou 17GR-10564 AthinaTel. (30-1) 331 41 80/1/2/3/4/5Fax (30-1) 323 98 21E-mail: [email protected]

ESPAÑA

Boletín Oficial del EstadoTrafalgar, 27E-28071 MadridTel. (34) 915 38 21 11 (Libros),Tel. 913 84 17 15 (Suscrip.)Fax (34) 915 38 21 21 (Libros),Fax 913 84 17 14 (Suscrip.)E-mail: [email protected]: http://www.boe.es

Mundi Prensa Libros, SACastelló, 37E-28001 MadridTel. (34) 914 36 37 00Fax (34) 915 75 39 98E-mail: [email protected]: http://www.mundiprensa.com

FRANCE

Journal officielService des publications des CE26, rue DesaixF-75727 Paris Cedex 15Tél. (33) 140 58 77 31Fax (33) 140 58 77 00URL: http://www.journal-officiel.gouv.fr

IRELAND

Government Supplies AgencyPublications Section4-5 Harcourt RoadDublin 2Tel. (353-1) 661 31 11Fax (353-1) 475 27 60

ITALIA

Licosa SpAVia Duca di Calabria, 1/1Casella postale 552I-50125 FirenzeTel. (39) 055 64 83 1Fax (39) 055 64 12 57E-mail: [email protected]: http://www.ftbcc.it/licosa

LUXEMBOURG

Messageries du livre SARL5, rue RaiffeisenL-2411 LuxembourgTél. (352) 40 10 20Fax (352) 49 06 61E-mail: [email protected]: http://www.mdl.lu

NEDERLAND

SDU Servicecentrum UitgeversChristoffel Plantijnstraat 2Postbus 200142500 EA Den HaagTel. (31-70) 378 98 80Fax (31-70) 378 97 83E-mail: [email protected]: http://www.sdu.nl

ÖSTERREICH

Manz’sche Verlags- undUniversitätsbuchhandlung GmbHKohlmarkt 16A-1014 WienTel. (43-1) 53 16 11 00Fax (43-1) 53 16 11 67E-Mail: [email protected]: http://www.manz.at/index.htm

PORTUGAL

Distribuidora de Livros Bertrand Ld.a

Grupo Bertrand, SARua das Terras dos Vales, 4-AApartado 60037P-2700 AmadoraTel. (351-1) 495 90 50Fax (351-1) 496 02 55

Imprensa Nacional-Casa da Moeda, EPRua Marquês Sá da Bandeira, 16-AP-1050 Lisboa CodexTel. (351-1) 353 03 99Fax (351-1) 353 02 94E-mail: [email protected]: http://www.incm.pt

SUOMI/FINLAND

Akateeminen Kirjakauppa/Akademiska BokhandelnKeskuskatu 1/Centralgatan 1PL/PB 128FIN-00101 Helsinki/HelsingforsP./tfn (358-9) 121 44 18F./fax (358-9) 121 44 35Sähköposti: [email protected]: http://www.akateeminen.com

SVERIGE

BTJ ABTraktorvägen 11S-221 82 LundTfn (46-46) 18 00 00Fax (46-46) 30 79 47E-post: [email protected]: http://www.btj.se

UNITED KINGDOM

The Stationery Office LtdInternational Sales Agency51 Nine Elms LaneLondon SW8 5DRTel. (44-171) 873 90 90Fax (44-171) 873 84 63E-mail: [email protected]: http://www.the-stationery-office.co.uk

ÍSLAND

Bokabud Larusar BlöndalSkólavördustig, 2IS-101 ReykjavikTel. (354) 551 56 50Fax (354) 552 55 60

NORGE

Swets Norge ASØstenjoveien 18Boks 6512 EtterstadN-0606 OsloTel. (47-22) 97 45 00Fax (47-22) 97 45 45

SCHWEIZ/SUISSE/SVIZZERA

Euro Info Center Schweizc/o OSECStampfenbachstraße 85PF 492CH-8035 ZürichTel. (41-1) 365 53 15Fax (41-1) 365 54 11E-mail: [email protected]: http://www.osec.ch/eics

B@LGARIJA

Europress Euromedia Ltd59, blvd VitoshaBG-1000 SofiaTel. (359-2) 980 37 66Fax (359-2) 980 42 30E-mail: [email protected]

|ESKÁ REPUBLIKA

ÚSISNIS-prodejnaHavelkova 22CZ-130 00 Praha 3Tel. (420-2) 24 23 14 86Fax (420-2) 24 23 11 14E-mail: [email protected]: http://usiscr.cz

CYPRUS

Cyprus Chamber of Commerce and IndustryPO Box 1455CY-1509 NicosiaTel. (357-2) 66 95 00Fax (357-2) 66 10 44E-mail: [email protected]

EESTI

Eesti Kaubandus-Tööstuskoda (EstonianChamber of Commerce and Industry)Toom-Kooli 17EE-0001 TallinnTel. (372) 646 02 44Fax (372) 646 02 45E-mail: [email protected]: http://www.koda.ee

HRVATSKA

Mediatrade LtdPavla Hatza 1HR-10000 ZagrebTel. (385-1) 481 94 11Fax (385-1) 481 94 11

MAGYARORSZÁG

Euro Info ServiceEurópa HázMargitszigetPO Box 475H-1396 Budapest 62Tel. (36-1) 350 80 25Fax (36-1) 350 90 32E-mail: [email protected]: http://www.euroinfo.hu/index.htm

MALTA

Miller Distributors LtdMalta International AirportPO Box 25Luqa LQA 05Tel. (356) 66 44 88Fax (356) 67 67 99E-mail: [email protected]

POLSKA

Ars PolonaKrakowskie Przedmiescie 7Skr. pocztowa 1001PL-00-950 WarszawaTel. (48-22) 826 12 01Fax (48-22) 826 62 40E-mail: [email protected]

ROMÂNIA

EuromediaStr. G-ral Berthelot Nr 41RO-70749 BucurestiTel. (40-1) 315 44 03Fax (40-1) 314 22 86

ROSSIYA

CCEC60-letiya Oktyabrya Av. 9117312 MoscowTel. (7-095) 135 52 27Fax (7-095) 135 52 27

SLOVAKIA

Centrum VTI SRNám. Slobody, 19SK-81223 BratislavaTel. (421-7) 54 41 83 64Fax (421-7) 54 41 83 64E-mail: [email protected]: http://www.sltk.stuba.sk

SLOVENIJA

Gospodarski VestnikDunajska cesta 5SLO-1000 LjubljanaTel. (386) 613 09 16 40Fax (386) 613 09 16 45E-mail: [email protected]: http://www.gvestnik.si

TÜRKIYE

Dünya Infotel AS100, Yil Mahallessi 34440TR-80050 Bagcilar-IstanbulTel. (90-212) 629 46 89Fax (90-212) 629 46 27E-mail: [email protected]

AUSTRALIA

Hunter PublicationsPO Box 4043067 Abbotsford, VictoriaTel. (61-3) 94 17 53 61Fax (61-3) 94 19 71 54E-mail: [email protected]

CANADA

Les éditions La Liberté Inc.3020, chemin Sainte-FoyG1X 3V Sainte-Foy, QuébecTel. (1-418) 658 37 63Fax (1-800) 567 54 49E-mail: [email protected]

Renouf Publishing Co. Ltd5369 Chemin Canotek Road Unit 1K1J 9J3 Ottawa, OntarioTel. (1-613) 745 26 65Fax (1-613) 745 76 60E-mail: [email protected]: http://www.renoufbooks.com

EGYPT

The Middle East Observer41 Sherif StreetCairoTel. (20-2) 392 69 19Fax (20-2) 393 97 32E-mail: [email protected]: http://www.meobserver.com.eg

INDIA

EBIC India3rd Floor, Y. B. Chavan CentreGen. J. Bhosale Marg.400 021 MumbaiTel. (91-22) 282 60 64Fax (91-22) 285 45 64E-mail: [email protected]: http://www.ebicindia.com

ISRAËL

ROY International

41, Mishmar Hayarden StreetPO Box 1305661130 Tel AvivTel. (972-3) 649 94 69Fax (972-3) 648 60 39E-mail: [email protected]: http://www.royint.co.il

Sub-agent for the Palestinian Authority:

Index Information Services

PO Box 19502JerusalemTel. (972-2) 627 16 34Fax (972-2) 627 12 19

JAPAN

PSI-Japan

Asahi Sanbancho Plaza #2067-1 Sanbancho, Chiyoda-kuTokyo 102Tel. (81-3) 32 34 69 21Fax (81-3) 32 34 69 15E-mail: [email protected]: http://www.psi-japan.com

MALAYSIA

EBIC Malaysia

Level 7, Wisma Hong Leong18 Jalan Perak50450 Kuala LumpurTel. (60-3) 262 62 98Fax (60-3) 262 61 98E-mail: [email protected]

MÉXICO

Mundi Prensa Mexico, SA de CV

Río Pánuco No 141Colonia CuauhtémocMX-06500 Mexico, DFTel. (52-5) 533 56 58Fax (52-5) 514 67 99E-mail: [email protected]

PHILIPPINES

EBIC Philippines

19th Floor, PS Bank TowerSen. Gil J. Puyat Ave. cor. Tindalo St.Makati CityMetro ManillaTel. (63-2) 759 66 80Fax (63-2) 759 66 90E-mail: [email protected]: http://www.eccp.com

SRI LANKA

EBIC Sri Lanka

Trans Asia Hotel115 Sir chittampalamA. Gardiner MawathaColombo 2Tel. (94-1) 074 71 50 78Fax (94-1) 44 87 79E-mail: [email protected]

THAILAND

EBIC Thailand

29 Vanissa Building, 8th FloorSoi ChidlomPloenchit10330 BangkokTel. (66-2) 655 06 27Fax (66-2) 655 06 28E-mail: [email protected]: http:/www.ebicbkk.org

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Bernan Associates

4611-F Assembly DriveLanham MD20706Tel. (1-800) 274 44 47 (toll free telephone)Fax (1-800) 865 34 50 (toll free fax)E-mail: [email protected]: http://www.bernan.com

ANDERE LÄNDER/OTHER COUNTRIES/AUTRES PAYS

Bitte wenden Sie sich an ein Büro IhrerWahl/ Please contact the sales officeof your choice/ Veuillez vous adresserau bureau de vente de votre choix

Office for Official Publicationsof the European Communities

2, rue MercierL-2985 LuxembourgTel. (352) 29 29-42455Fax (352) 29 29-42758E-mail: [email protected]: http://eur-op.eu.int

2/99

Venta • Salg • Verkauf • Pvlèseiw • Sales • Vente • Vendita • Verkoop • Venda • Myynti • Försäljning

25 ISSUESAT A GLANCE

CARING FOR OUR FUTURECARING FOR OUR FUTURE

ACTION FOR EUROPE´SENVIRONMENTEUROPEAN COMMISSION

CAR

ING FOR OUR

FUTURE

ACTIO

N F

OR

EU

RO

PE’S

EN

VIR

ON

MEN

T

1999

EN

14C

R-21-99-836-EN-C

Price (excluding VAT) in Luxembourg: EUR 10

OFFICE FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATIONSOF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

L-2985 Luxembourg9 789282 875858

ISBN 92-828-7585-7

3rd edition 2000

CARING FOR OUR FUTURE - European...

Documents

Transcript of CARING FOR OUR FUTURE - European...