International VROM agenda

November 2006

1

2

Index for Part I Page 1. Introduction 5 1.1 Running order 6 1.2 Towards an integrated International VROM agenda 6

2. VROM in a changing and changed context 8 2.1 A better co-ordination of European policy in the Netherlands …. 8 translated into implementation by VROM 2.2 Environment and the reforming of the United Nations (UN) 11 3. The most important issues for the coming year 3.1 Energy and climate 12 3.2 Air quality 15 3.3 Natural resources 16 3.4 Review of the 6th Environmental Action Programme 17 3.5 European policy with spatial impact 17

Index for Part II: Page

1. Health and Environment 1.1 Pan-European Programme on Transport, Environment and Health 21 1.2 Health and Environment 21 1.3 PRTR and E-PRTR 22 1.4 Convention on Long-Range Trans-boundary Air Pollution (LRTAP) 22 1.5 Montreal Protocol 23 1.6 Stockholm Convention 23 1.7 Rotterdam Convention 24 1.8 Basel Convention 25 1.9 SAICM: Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management 26 1.10 UNEP Chemicals Programme 27 1.11 REACH 27 1.12 Global nitrogen strategy 28 1.13 Thematic strategy for pesticides 29 1.14 Thematic strategy for soil 30 1.15 Thematic strategy on the urban environment 31 1.16 International noise: traffic emissions 32 2. Water 2.1 European marine strategy 34 2.2 Priority substances in water (WFD, Water Framework Directive) 35 2.3 OSPAR 35 2.4 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea 36 2.5 Marpol/IMO 36 2.6 London Convention/Protocol 1996 37 2.7 Demolition ships 37 2.8 Protocol on Water and Health 37 3. Security 3.1 European GMO policy 38 3.2 Global GMO policy: Bio-safety Protocol 38 3.3 Environmental security 39 3.4 High water guideline 39 3.5 Nuclear security 40 3.6 External security 41

3

4. Economic development Page

4.1 Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) 44 4.2 Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OESO) 45 4.3 Economic Commission for Europe (ECE) 46

4.4 Environment and trade 47 4.5 Lisbon strategy: Clean, Clever and Strong in Europe 48 4.6 Thematic strategy for waste prevention and recycling/

revision of Directive 49 4.7 Financing of international environmental policy and preserving the

supply of money 49 4.8 Sustainable production and consumption 50 5. Space 5.1 EU policy with spatial impact 52 5.2 European Territorial Agenda 53 5.3 Trans-boundary cooperation 53 5.4 Strengthening of regional structure and territorial cohesion 54

6. Habitat/Urban environment 6.1 UN Habitat 55 6.2 European harmonisation 55 6.3 State support for housing corporations 56

6.4 Energy performance of buildings 57

7. Cross-sectional (VROM) subjects 7.1 Compliance procedures for environmental directives 58 7.2 Enforcement 58

7.3 European Sustainable Development Strategy (EU-SDS) 59 7.4 INSPIRE 60 7.5 Review of 6th Environment Action Programme 61 7.6 Aarhus Convention 61 7.7 Revision of IPPC 62 7.8 Espoo Convention 63 7.9 Financial Perspectives 2007–2013 63 7.10 LIFE+ 64

4

PART I

5

1. Introduction The Netherlands is actively steering and shaping its international efforts. There are very good reasons for taking this approach, not least that realization of the policy requires a very international focus. This is especially true for VROM’s policy areas of environment, spatial planning and housing. After all, there are major international developments that are bringing with them certain challenges for VROM policy. At the same time, more than half the VROM policy objectives can be achieved effectively in an international (i.e., European and/or global) context. This is why VROM is active in an international context in very many of its policy areas. The VROM’s international agenda provides a cohesive overview of these efforts and international objectives. This agenda differs in two important respects from the European and global Environmental Agenda published in 2005.1 Firstly, the agenda that you have before you integrates European policy and global policy. Environmental challenges in particular often have a European and a global component: there are many areas (such as chemicals and climate change) where discussion and decision-making take place both within the EU and outside it (in the UN in particular). Within the EU, policies and measures are fine-tuned so as to arrive at a consensus position that the EU will adopt in respect of international policies and treaties. As an active player in dozens of these European and international committees, we look beyond the geographical division between European and global interests, in order to ensure that the various decision-making processes are better co-ordinated. The second difference is that this agenda looks at the dossiers for the environment, spatial planning, housing and for government buildings. This makes it the first ever truly international VROM agenda. In the area of Spatial Planning, the challenge is to monitor closely the ways in which EU policy can affect our spatial planning. On the one hand, this is necessary to ensure that EU policy is in line with national policy, whilst on the other hand we need to ensure that the Netherlands can make better use of the different options that the EU can offer for the implementation of spatial policy in the Netherlands. This is why it is important to (more closely) monitor the impact that new EU proposals could have on spatial planning and to be capable of influencing the European policymaking process from its very inception, in order to ensure that the EU policy will have no – or as few as possible – undesirable consequences for spatial development. It is also becoming ever clearer in respect of housing and government buildings policies that much of the EU legislation is influencing the national (housing) policy and that there are also opportunities in the field of the EU urban policy – which is now closer and closer to its final form – in order to ensure that the EU policy contributes to national policy. Dutch efforts are not geared towards strengthening the European competences in this field. On the contrary, all policies relating to housing are a matter for the individual member states, although co-ordination is needed to ensure that the European internal market works properly; co-ordination can also provide opportunities to respond at an earlier stage to related legislation and policy. At a global level, spatial planning, housing and government buildings require little more action than that resulting from a number of specific MoUs (Memoranda of Understanding) agreed for such areas as housing, plus the exchange of knowledge and best practices. In addition, VROM is contributing to the Dutch efforts that are aiming to improve living conditions in urban areas in developing countries, in particular through the UN Habitat programme. The four policy areas (environment, spatial planning, housing and government buildings) affect each other: for example, the effect that environmental directives have on spatial planning has to be recognised (for instance in the air quality directive) and more and more environmental directives, such as the high water directive, have a spatial impact; energy measures affect housing and government buildings policy and conversely, we need a

1 Dutch Lower House, parliamentary year 2005-2006, 28 663, nr.42

6

sustainable housing policy for environmental reasons. This interdependency is the reason why we have now decided to have an integrated, international VROM agenda. 1.1 Running order This agenda has been organised as follows: Part I consists of the agenda and information on the context within which the Dutch international VROM policy is formulated. Section 2 of Part I describes the context within which the Dutch government makes its contribution to the European and global decision-making process and ensures that European legislation is implemented in national legislation and policy implementation. In the last few years, this context has seen great change as the result of social and political developments. Next, in Section 3, we look at the issues that will have the highest priority in the coming year at a European and global level. Part II includes an overview of the dossiers at a European and global level that have the greatest bearing on VROM policy. These are usually dossiers that have either been published by the Commission and prepared in the Council, or for which a new proposal from the Commission is likely; and also refer to programmes, treaties and issues that are important in either a UN or other international context. These dossiers overlap with VROM policy areas, even though VROM does not bear primary responsibility for the policy in respect of all these dossiers. An example of this is high water policy, which is actually handled by the Environmental Council. The latest developments in respect of each dossier are stated briefly, along with the planned Dutch efforts in this field, without new policy goals being formulated for this, incidentally. In addition, if relevant and necessary, this agenda will indicate whether it is a dossier that overlaps with and affects spatial development or planning issues (apart from Sections 5 and 6, where it is already obvious). The International VROM agenda also looks ahead to the year 2008. This year, the long-term environmental goals have been set down in the Future Environment Agenda,2 which we have already presented to you. The House will shortly receive a letter that will contain summarised information on the implementation of the action items set out in the future agenda. In the same way, the House was recently given the Implementation Schedule for the Spatial Planning Memorandum, which includes a concise overview of the said implementation. This Implementation Schedule also contains a section on the Netherlands in Europe. A separate letter has also been sent to both Houses about the way in which the (Dutch) Cabinet in general and the Minister of VROM in particular are implementing the Meindertsma Motion (see page 9). 1.2 Towards an integrated International VROM agenda In its role as a player within the EU, the Netherlands has set itself new goals, partly as the result of the developments of the past few years. These developments (namely the referendum on the European Constitution and the enlargement of the EU to 25 member states) have led to a review of the role played by the Netherlands in Europe; this review was also “fuelled” by a number of studies carried out into the effectiveness of the Dutch government in Europe.3 The House has already been informed about these studies via various media, including via the various Cabinet responses to these studies. The chief recommendations resulting from

2 Future Environment Agenda: Clean, clever and strong (“Toekomstagenda Milieu: schoon, slim en sterk”,); April 2006 3 Including: - The EU Co-ordination of the Dutch Foreign Office: good, better, best (“De EU-coördinatie van BZ: goed, beter, best”, Professor Jaap W. de Zwaan, Erasmus University, 20 December 2004 - Report of the Joint Committee on steering EU matters (“Sturing EU-aangelegenheden”), B.J. Baron van Voorst tot Voorst, 7 June 2005 - The Netherlands and the creation of EU directives (“Nederland en de totstandkoming van EU-richtlijnen”), J. Rood c.s., December 2005 – Cabinet position on from a Council of State recommendation: The Netherlands in Europe - Europe in the Netherlands (“Nederland in Europa - Europa in Nederland”), 10 March 2006 – SER (Dutch Socio-Economic Council) recommendation: The Netherlands and EU environmental directives (“Nederland en EU-milieurichtlijnen”), 16 June 2006

7

these studies, which all relate to the effectiveness of Dutch input into European policy, are as follows in respect of VROM policy: (1) greater efforts need to be put into the early phase of the European policy cycle; (2) the main features and priorities of Dutch EU policy must be formulated in a timely way at a political level and ideas have to be actively exchanged on this with the Parliament and where appropriate with other authorities, special interest groups and the general public; and (3) if opportune, there has to be a greater focus on achieving an integrated approach between the environment and spatial planning policy areas, amongst others. A recommendation published by the Voorhoeve Commission4 relating to the co-ordination of foreign policy in general also advocated greater co-ordination of long-term strategies in respect of countries such as China and India, which are important in respect of such areas as international environmental policy. All these recommendations have been and are being taken to heart. This international VROM agenda is just one of the ways in which we are not only implementing in practice our desire to get our national Parliament involved early on in (imminent) European proposals and international dossiers where Dutch involvement – usually developed in a European context – is required; on the other hand, we are also trying to help meet the need for a co-ordinated approach to and viewpoint on such issues as the environment and sustainable spatial development and to translate this into specific dossiers. Looking at VROM’s policy areas, we must also remember that European environmental policy is at a different stage in the policy cycle than are the development of European spatial planning policy and European initiatives that affect housing policy and government buildings policy. In addition, as stated above, there are significant differences in the powers granted to the EU in these areas. This has inevitable consequences for the type of information that can be provided in the various policy dossiers in the fields of environment, housing, government buildings and spatial planning. Although these components of the international VROM agenda differ from each other in the phase they are in and their dynamic nature, we aim to provide the best possible overview of all three policy areas and, where relevant, to set out the relationships among these three policy areas.

4 Report of Joint Committee: Integrated Foreign Policy (“Geïntegreerd Buitenlands Beleids”), as part of the Programma Andere Overheid, 6 June 2005

8

2. VROM in a changing and changed context In the Netherlands, an ongoing review process is looking at options for further integration within the European Union and its enlargement to 27 members, which processes partly resulted from the discussions that centred around the referendum on the European constitution. Following on from this, a number of advisory committees have made a series of recommendations on Dutch involvement in Europe and on ways that this could be improved. This section will look at ways in which these recommendations can be translated into the day-to-day implementation of VROM policy. A second, totally separate development that will be briefly discussed in this section is the reforming of the United Nations (UN). For several years now, the UN has been under pressure to achieve more effective and more visible results, which has now led the Secretary-General of the UN to assign a high priority to such reforms. This autumn, the General Assembly of the United Nations will have to pass resolutions that will make the UN a more effective organisation. 2.1 A better co-ordination of European policy in the Netherlands …. translated into implementation by VROM The Netherlands must play a greater role in deciding European environmental policy Within our ministry, the above-mentioned recommendations have led amongst other things to a greater focus on the ‘early phase’ of Commission proposals. It is precisely during this so-called ‘expert phase’ when member states have certain opportunities to influence policy proposals put forward by the European Commission. Examples of active involvement with proposals that are still in the expert phase or were so until recently, are the soil strategy, the priority substances directive, the review of the NEC directive (national emissions ceilings) and the IPPC (integrated pollution prevention and control). As already set out in the Cabinet position paper “The Netherlands in Europe, Europe in the Netherlands” on the Council of State recommendation (see footnote 3), the Netherlands is monitoring more quickly and more closely the potential consequences of EU proposals, including setting up Dutch impact assessment studies at an early stage. VROM itself is trying to find out the best type and structure to use for such impact assessment studies, whilst also looking at options for co-ordinating this with actual practice in other member states. VROM wants to get other stakeholders involved more quickly and more optimally in the process of deciding what position to adopt, which is why it has organised stakeholder meetings between local authorities, trade and industry and NGOs, for instance. During such meetings, stakeholders have the opportunity to actually put forward their interests. “Inter-administrational dossier teams”, are teams assigned a particular dossier whose members are experts from various local authorities and who meet up to effectively organise and contribute towards the Dutch efforts, can also be used to help local authorities to become actively involved during the early phase and other phases of the Brussels policymaking process. In addition, there is also a greater focus in the VROM policy areas on the questions of proportionality and subsidiarity – for example, careful study of the framework directive on soil protection has led to a negative proportionality evaluation. More generally, during the preliminary phase we are now taking a more critical look at the instruments we need to achieve the desired goals. Note that in respect of the thematic strategies instrument (which was first deployed in the sixth Environmental Action Programme), VROM is advocating that in future this should be uncoupled from the legislation that could result from it, so that the Council and the European Parliament have more options to politically manage the thematic strategy process. In a first step, the Commission has elected to write a so-called “Towards” document in the form of a Notice (a “Mededeling”), which helps to guide the subsequent thematic strategy. The next step for most issues (namely: air quality, waste, marine environment, pesticides and soil) is to publish the strategy and resulting legislation simultaneously. However, this approach means that the Council and the European Parliament (EP) have little leeway to exercise political influence on the thematic strategy process.5

9

Another specific issue arising from the above-mentioned recommendations is that of the relationship between quality-related goals and source policy. As part of our study of the dossiers that will be sent to us in the coming period, we will continue to work towards achieving a strict European source policy. After all, quality standards can only be achieved if they are linked to a stricter European and international source policy. This is an important issue in respect of future environmental policy, for instance in the context of the review of the sixth Environmental Action Programme. In connection with this, we have recognised the need to focus more than previously on the necessary spatial differentiation in respect of EU environmental policy. After all, the physical environment and the use made of it varies from member state to member state. In by no means all cases does one and the same EU-wide requirement produce the best solution to a problem. The proportionality principle requires these differences to be taken into account as well. Responding more effectively to European sector policy relevant to spatial planning Following on from the debate on the Spatial Planning Memorandum, the Meindertsma motion was accepted by the Upper House on 21 March 2005, which motion advocates a further incorporation of the spatial impact of European sector policy into national policy.6 The House established that: • increasingly, the legislation and directives of the EU are impacting on the outcomes of

national planning processes; • damage is resulting from government planning decisions because European policy is

being overlooked; • the government must deal with European policy in a pro-active way; • the memoranda under discussion (in particular the Spatial Planning Memorandum and

the ‘Peaks in the Delta’ Memorandum) contain almost no European perspective; • there has to be a fundamental debate on the way in which EU legislation is dealt with and

on the way that the Netherlands does this compared to other countries; The House also established that there is no single body in our country that maintains an overview of EU legislation or compiles it or translates it into strategic management tasks and “maps” of its impact on spatial planning processes. The Meindertsma motion asked the government and in particular the Minister of VROM, to collect, collate and translate the knowledge of EU policy into the consequences for our spatial planning policy and to make it available to the entire sphere of action. We for our part share the concern expressed in the motion. The following tangible steps have now been taken to implement the task approved in the motion (and as verbally clarified in the plenary debate held by the Upper House on the Spatial Planning Memorandum dated 17 January 2006):

• Based on the European Commission’s programme of activities, the RPC (Dutch National Land Use Planning Commission) has drawn up a list of dossiers that could have a spatial impact. This was discussed interdepartmentally at an early stage. Part II of this international VROM agenda contains an initial overview of the EU dossiers with a spatial impact. This overview will be regularly updated and submitted to Parliament.

• Information on the spatial impact of EU policy, for instance in respect of transport, nature, agriculture or rural development will to the fullest extent possible be exchanged with such stakeholders such as the municipalities, provinces, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and knowledge institutions;

5 For example, the decision-making process in respect of the Council’s conclusions on the Air Quality Thematic Strategy “Clean Air for Europe” in the Environmental Council in June 2006 took place at a time when the Air Quality Directive (that amongst other things should implement the Thematic Strategy) had already been submitted to the Council for discussion. The then EU President refused to allow an evaluation of the directive in the context of the Thematic Strategy, citing procedural rules. 6 Meindertsma motion, XXI-A; 21 March 2005; Integrated policy debate on spatial and economic development in the Netherlands.

10

Finally, we refer to the above-mentioned SER recommendation “The Netherlands and EU environmental directives” (see footnote 3). The SER is not the only body to refer to the need to have a more integrated approach to spatial planning and the environment, and not just because of the effects that EU environmental legislation and legislation in other sectors can have on spatial planning (such as the Bird and Habitat Directives and the Framework Directive on Water). The Cabinet has welcomed the SER recommendation and views the recommendation that environmental policy and spatial policy should be integrated as a plea for a greater involvement of the RPC and the RRODM (Dutch council for spatial development, sustainability and environmental matters) in the evaluation of EU proposals that have a potential impact on spatial planning. As stated above, the House has already received this Cabinet response. Consequences for Dutch policy on housing and government buildings As stated above, EU sector policy is perceived as having an ever greater effect on (national) housing policy. Examples include the impact of state support rules on housing corporations and others, the new energy standards (such as the implementation of the Energy Performances of Buildings Directive), sustainable renovation of high-rise buildings and building-related health and safety issues. In addition, there is co-operation at a European level in the field of the harmonisation of innovative materials and energy saving, in particular in respect of the renovation of the existing stock of housing, which is contributing to a reduction in emissions of greenhouse gases and fine particles. We expect that in the coming years a significant part of building legislation will be decided directly or indirectly by European policy decisions. This is why we monitor closely and critically the impact that new European policy initiatives could have on housing and buildings policy in the Netherlands and we are also working on opportunities that could be created by such initiatives to promote sustainable building within Europe. In a broader context, the EU’s urban policy also offers opportunities for VROM policy in the Netherlands. The European structural funds (ERDFs/European Regional Development Funds) are earmarking more “cohesion” funds for urban development, to promote both social cohesion in disadvantaged neighbourhoods and economic growth in cities. In the case of the new member states, energy saving in the field of social housing can help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The aim is to deploy as much of these funds as possible to support existing policy. If we wish to take advantage of opportunities and at the same time remain alert to developments, then we need to take a pro-active approach, once again during the preliminary phase of the European policymaking process in particular. The impact of European policy and legislation on government buildings is substantial. In addition, the impact is widespread, given that the Netherlands Government Buildings Agency (NGBA) has to deal with about ten different “Brussels” Directorates-General. This refers to policy and legislation in the fields of putting out to tender, internal market services, building products, machines, regional policy, safety, transport and energy, environment, competition, working conditions and economical and financial issues. However, none of these “European dossiers” are the primary responsibility of the NGBA. This means that the NGBA has to rely on the efforts of other government departments to represent its interests in respect of these dossiers. In order to achieve this, about two years ago the NGBA developed a monitoring instrument. There are two parts to this monitoring instrument, namely:

- a network, consisting in NGBA staff and representatives of the VROM’s Internal Affairs Board (IZ) and of other ministries, which concentrates on representing the interests of the NGBA in respect of the above-mentioned “dossiers” and on obtaining relevant information from Brussels;

- an overview of the latest developments, including developments in Brussels relevant to NGBA matters and the expected bottlenecks.

This monitoring instrument enables the NGBA to respond quickly to developments in Brussels and to take measures promptly.

11

2.2 Environment and the reformation of the United Nations (UN) For several years now, the UN has been under pressure to achieve more effective and more visible results. This was the reason why the UN Secretary-General decided to assign high priority to the reformation of the UN, with this reform process receiving a boost at the UN Summit in 2005 (see below). There are two issues here that are relevant to environmental policy, namely strengthening the international environmental architecture and the stage at which the (UN) system-wide cohesion process is. At the present time, Environment does not carry the same institutional weight (or mandate) within the UN as other areas of policy, a fact that can lead to environmental issues being overlooked. The above-mentioned UN summit in 2005 initiated a consultation process headed by the chairman of the UN’s General Assembly. In an EU context, the Netherlands has advocated upgrading the UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme) but, at the same time, has stated that the way in which this is done does not have to dominate the entire discussion. Previous discussions have shown that outside the EU there is currently little interest in transforming the UNEP into a specialised organisation (UNEO, United Nations Environment Organisation). In the opinion of the G77, China and the US, the existing system provides enough flexibility to achieve improvements. The appointment of a new UN Secretary-General as a successor to Kofi Annan may well delay efforts to have possible conclusions and their implementation put on the agenda. This process must be seen in conjunction with a second process underway at the UN that is following on from the above-mentioned 2005 UN Summit and which is a process to bring about a so-called “system-wide cohesion”. In general terms, this process will concentrate on: - achieving greater cohesion between the various UN activities; - achieving better co-ordination between the standard formulation of the policy goals within

the UN and their actual implementation; - achieving more co-ordinated deployment of the UN at a national level. In order to help implement this assignment, whose roots lie in the 2005 UN Summit, a High Level Panel was set up to report to the UN’s General Assembly. This Panel also has to explore options for creating more tightly-knit organisations in the field of environment, development co-operation and humanitarian affairs. This means that this process will overlap with the process to strengthen the International Environmental Architecture described above. The above drive to achieve more tightly-knit organisations is meeting with resistance, in particular in respect of the desired financing structure. Based on the above-mentioned reports, further steps can be taken in both these processes to improve the position of the environment in the UN and to make the environment an integrated component of the work performed in other UN institutions. In this field of different forces, the Netherlands will review within the EU the steps that can or must be taken during the UN’s General Assembly.

12

3. The most important issues for the coming year We will now look at the five most important international dossiers from VROM’s perspective, although naturally we do not underestimate the importance of the other dossiers. Part II of this International VROM agenda will go into more detail on all the dossiers that will require our attention and efforts in the near future. The choice of the most important environmental dossiers for VROM dovetails with the prioritisation set out in the 2007 State of the Union address.7 3.1 Energy and climate There are important developments in the world of energy: the supply of oil and gas is under pressure due to political instability and increased demand for energy. Oil price rises affect economic growth and the world’s increasing energy consumption is causing major environmental problems, such as climate change and deteriorating air quality. Price increases and shifts towards the use of alternative energy sources may have a far-reaching impact on spatial planning and on the developed environment. The European Union is becoming increasingly dependent on energy imports, which is why there is broad support for the development of a European energy policy that can cope with the above-mentioned developments. European energy policy affects the ability to achieve environmental targets in the field of climate change and air quality and the ability to change over to sustainable energy conservation, these being key objectives of the Dutch environmental and energy policy. Clean and clever innovations in the energy and transportation sector in particular help to combat undesirable climate change and improve air quality. The policy discussions on energy, climate and innovation have to be integrated and carried out taking into account the relevant interdependencies. We have to look for opportunities for generating synergy in the fields of goals/targets, policy, measures and instruments. The energy report “Now for later”8 proposes tackling energy-related problems by improving co-operation within Europe, achieving substantial energy savings, increasing the proportion of all energy produced from sustainable sources and boosting innovation in – and increasing the choice of – energy sources. The government has been advised on the international issues relating to continuity of energy supply by the AIV (Dutch advisory council on international issues) and the AER (the Dutch General Energy Council). The Cabinet has drafted a response to this advice in its memorandum on Continuity of energy supply and foreign policy (“Energievoorzieningszekerheid en buitenlandsbeleid”) dated 24 May 2006. This memorandum has also been sent to the House and also refers to the energy report “Now for later” and to the three primary goals of energy policy, which relate to continuity of supply, competitive markets and the environment and which are the same for external European energy policy. We need to have an integrated energy policy that also implements measures that help to achieve the three primary goals. The Spring Summit of EU heads of government in March 2006 established that Europe needs a new energy policy. This policy also focuses on three primary goals, namely improving continuity of supply, ensuring the competitiveness of European industry and improving the environment. It was also established that a European strategy for external relationships is needed. Together, the EU’s CFSP (Common Foreign and Security Policy), ESDP (European Security and Defence Policy), European neighbourhood policy, trade policy and development and environmental policy can all contribute to European energy policy, including to the achievement of environmental improvements. In late October 2006, an informal European summit of heads of government held in Lahti, Finland, discussed EU energy policy and the European innovation policy. In the run-up to this 7 Lower House, parliamentary year 2006-2007, 30 802, nr. 1 8 Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs: Now for later. Energy report 2005 (“Nu voor later. Energierapport 2005”), July 2005

13

summit, Dutch premier Balkenende and his British colleague Tony Blair sent a joint letter to EU President Vanhanen and their European colleagues to underline the fact that this discussion cannot be separated from the issue of climate change. They used this letter to outline a series of measures that the EU would have to implement to deal with climate change. Balkenende and Blair urge the EU heads of government to reach a decision on this issue at the next Spring Summit in March 2007. This initiative by the British and Dutch premiers about the need to also make climate change an important priority at the level of the European Council met with widespread support. Everyone also endorsed the view that climate change, innovation and energy can have major effects on each other. German Chancellor Merkel (who will be the EU President for the first half of 2007) replied that she will make climate a key issue to be discussed at the Spring Summit under the German presidency. A strategic evaluation of energy policy will be published in early 2007. In this report, the Commission will present an overall view of EU energy policy, along with a package of specific European measures relating to the internal market, energy efficiency, renewable energy, clean fossil fuels and nuclear power. This package will probably be discussed during the 2007 Spring Summit. Dutch efforts in the coming period Looking at the long term, the Netherlands is focusing its energy policy on achieving a sustainable energy conservation policy that ensures continuity of supply, is affordable and improves the quality of the environment. Over the next few decades, emissions of greenhouse gases must be reduced such that the atmospheric temperature rises by no more than 2 degrees Centigrade compared to the pre-industrial level, with this measure also improving air quality. However, this can only be achieved if agreements are reached that lead to the large-scale marketing of clean energy technologies at an international level. This means countries will need to co-operate with each other in order to share knowledge and the high development costs. Dutch efforts in the environmental sphere at the next Spring Summit (2007) and the various expert committees will concentrate on the following issues: deciding on the importance of synergy in policymaking, energy instruments, goals and targets, the environment and innovation, achieving rapid clarification on the European emissions trading rules and the continued deployment of market instruments (including in modified form) such as the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), combating climate change after 2012, measures to achieve energy efficiency, renewable energy and encouraging the development of clean fossil fuels. We believe that the Netherlands must play a pioneering role in efforts to solve the complex energy issues with which we are faced. Climate The climate is changing on a global scale. The most serious consequences of this are: rises in sea level, ecosystem damage, freshwater shortages and changes to agricultural productivity, all of which can greatly affect the Dutch environment, spatial planning and security situation. The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (the “Climate Convention”) is the motor that drives climate policy. The main aim of this treaty is to stabilise greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that prevents human activity from seriously disrupting the climate system. The 1997 Kyoto Protocol stipulates that the most industrialised countries must reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by an average of more than 5% during the period 2008–2012 compared to 1990 levels. The EU has set itself a goal of an 8% reduction and, after a consultation process, has set emission reduction targets for each member state. The Netherlands has taken it upon itself to achieve a 6% reduction in emissions. The current forecast is that both the EU and the Netherlands will achieve their targets. Developments in the coming period The Climate Convention negotiations on the policy to be pursued after 2012 commenced in 2006. The second round of negotiations was held in November 2006 in Nairobi, during the COP12/ MOP2 conference sessions for the Kyoto Protocol. Parallel to these discussions, discussions on this topic were held between the G8 countries and also featured in

14

discussions in a whole host of other international processes.9 After laborious negotiations, it was agreed that the Kyoto issues to be reviewed will be agreed in 2007 and that the outcome will be discussed in 2008. This means that the starting shot for negotiations will probably not be fired until 2009. The European Commission is currently working together with various task forces to produce a follow-up to the European climate programme. These task forces are looking at an evaluation of the first climate programme, air travel, CO2 and cars, CO2 storage and removal and the adaptation and evaluation of the EU emissions trading system. This follow-up to the European climate programme is being created in the context of the EU discussion on the development of a European medium and long-term climate strategy, on which a Green Paper will be presented in early 2007. The impending Green Paper on adaptation will also have major repercussions for spatial policy. We should mention in this context that VROM is one of the partners in the ESPACE project (European Spatial Planning: Adapting to Climate Events). This is a European joint venture between Germany, Belgium, the United Kingdom (the lead partner) and the Netherlands. ESPACE has set itself the following goals: - to develop a new transnational approach to spatial planning and climate change; - to devise a policy framework that includes adaptation strategies, and - to make recommendations on ways of integrating policy into spatial planning systems. Dutch efforts in the coming period In respect of the implementation of the existing agreements under the Kyoto Protocol, it has been agreed that 67 Mton CO2 equivalent is to be achieved through the deployment of the Clean Development Mechanism abroad. VROM has signed framework contracts with the World Bank, the IFC, Rabobank and the Latin-American development bank CAF to buy these emission rights. In addition, SenterNovem has organised a tender process for VROM for the purchase of emission rights. Good progress is being made in these activities, which should be completed by mid-2007. Apart from implementing the existing agreements under the above-mentioned Climate Convention and the Kyoto Protocol, Dutch efforts will mainly concentrate on the development of a climate regime for the period after 2012. An IBO (interdepartmental policy study) is currently being carried out into future international climate policy. Under a future regime, stricter goals will have to be set for industrialised countries – and developing countries will have to make greater efforts – than is currently the case, but this must take into account both the common and different responsibilities and options open to these countries. To this end, the Netherlands will endeavour both within and outside the framework of the Climate Convention to achieve a broad coalition of major emitters and energy users that will focus on achieving a global climate regime in which climate change can be tackled effectively. The EU will need to develop proposals to this end on mitigation, technology transfer, adaptation and market opportunities, as a first step towards reaching further agreements for the period after 2012 that will also dovetail with the interests of developing countries. These proposals must also set out targets and goals for the developing countries. The EU must develop proposals that include incentives, to increase the likelihood that major emitters/energy users will participate in such a regime. The Netherlands sets great store by the deployment of market instruments to combat climate change. In 2000, in order to boost the market for emission rights and achieve its national emission targets, the Netherlands took the lead in proposing budgets for the purchase of emission rights via the market instruments Joint Implementation (JI) and the Clean Development Mechanism. Other countries such as Japan, Spain and Austria have now implemented similar initiatives. A major aim of the international conference “Make Markets Work for Climate” that was held in Amsterdam in October 2006 and organised by VROM in collaboration with the World Bank, Shell and ABN AMRO Bank) was to give a further boost to the development and implementation of market mechanisms to combat climate change.

9 The G8 countries are Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Italy, Canada, the United States, Japan and Russia.

15

Beyond the scope of the Climate Convention, the Netherlands is working hard to strengthen international co-operation, including by fleshing out the co-operation between the EU and China and India respectively, as well as via other partnerships. An interesting development outside the scope of the Climate Convention is the investment framework for clean energy and development developed by the World Bank at the request of the G8 countries. The World Bank framework is founded on three important cornerstones: creating sustainable access to modern energy services for developing countries; promoting economies with low carbon emissions in developing countries; adaptation to climate change in developing countries. Within this framework, the Netherlands is working towards achieving and maintaining the right balance between these three cornerstones. In respect of the second cornerstone (changeover to an economy with low carbon emissions), the Netherlands wishes to see detailed options, both for the adaptation of the existing set of instruments and for new instruments, provided that these create added value. The investment framework will be worked out in more detail in 2007 in a consultation process with donors, companies and regional banks. The Netherlands wants this framework to be discussed in the UN context and elsewhere. The importance of and options for deployment of such instruments were the main theme at the Make Markets Work for Climate conference. Work also needs to continue on the goals and development of the EU emissions trading system, for instance to incorporate air travel emissions. A proposal by the European Commission to incorporate air travel into the EU emissions trading system is expected by the end of 2006, a proposal that the Netherlands will support. In addition, the Netherlands believes that we still need to have other economic instruments at our disposal to deploy alongside that of emissions trading. The EU’s own targets for climate policy for the period after 2012 have to be credible from an environmental perspective. This credibility will depend on such factors as the number of members joining the international coalition, competitiveness, and fair apportionment of the burden among the international partners. The EU member states, including the Netherlands, are able to stimulate technological development, for example through model projects such as the CO2 storage project in China that is being carried out in the context of the EU-China dialogue process. VROM is organising an ESPACE-related conference on Dutch examples of adaptation policy (November 2006) and an international congress (spring 2007) at which the first outlines of the various national strategies for dealing with climate change will be presented. 3.2 Air quality Air quality will also remain an important agenda item for the foreseeable future, in combination with sustainable mobility and, more specifically, source-focused measures such as regulations Euro 5 and 6 on vehicle emissions. We are all aware of the importance of this dossier in respect of the issues of environment, public health and spatial planning development in the Netherlands. At the time of writing this international VROM agenda, the negotiations about both the new air quality directive and the Euro 5 regulation on car emissions of fine particles and other substances, are in full swing. Both legislative proposals stem from the Thematic Strategy on Air Quality presented by the European Commission last year. A Political Accord on the air quality directive was reached during the Environmental Council meeting on 23 October 2006. European developments in respect of the air quality dossier continue to occur thick and fast, although both the final outcome and schedule are still uncertain. Given the importance of this dossier for the Netherlands, the Lower House will be informed as comprehensively as possible both before and after the Environmental Council meeting and upon submission of the Dutch legislative proposal on air quality. This is another reason why the information in this agenda is limited to the main points. Dutch efforts in the coming period

16

Both before and since the new air quality directive was published in July 2005, the Netherlands has devoted much effort to creating additional options in the new directive for achieving the air quality norms. The Netherlands will do its utmost to achieve the existing EU norms; after all, these norms play an important role in improving public health and the environment. In the case of future EU norms, Dutch efforts will focus on agreeing realistic norms. It is very hard for a country as densely populated as the Netherlands to achieve the existing norms within the set deadlines, also because it has to deal with a great deal of cross-border pollution. For these reasons, the Netherlands has dedicated itself to extending by 5 years the period during which the norms for fine particles and nitrogen oxide (NOx) must be complied with, although certain conditions must be adhered to (including that a member state must be able to prove that it has taken and is taking all reasonable measures). In addition, the Netherlands is making great efforts to get the air quality requirements linked to Community source policy. This source policy is all the more necessary because it ensures that cross-border pollution – with fine particles for example – is also restricted.

The Euro 5 norms relate to fine particles and in practice now mean that a soot filter has to be fitted (for the norm now being proposed). In addition, the Netherlands will keep working towards the rapid implementation of Euro 6, which will tighten up the emission norms for NOx, as this will help the Netherlands to achieve its air quality norms for nitrogen dioxide (NO2). Within the EU, most member states are in agreement that strict requirements regarding NOx emissions must be implemented quickly, in order to achieve their air quality targets. The review of the National Emission Ceiling (NEC) directive is scheduled for 2007, which is also an important aspect of the drive to combat air pollution at the source. This review will be based on national reports on the implementation of the directive, which have to be submitted to the European Commission by the end of this year. The Lower House will be informed before the submission is made to the European Commission. 3.3 Natural resources A more sustainable use of natural resources is of major, long-term interest for the Netherlands. During the debate on the Future Environment Agenda on 13 June 2006, Ms Van Velzen and Mr Samson and others in the House asked that the issues of natural resources and biodiversity be reviewed. More sustainable use of natural resources must lead amongst other goals to absolute uncoupling – in other words, to a reduction in the negative environmental impact stemming from consumption of natural resources, even if the economy in question is growing. When analysing the use of natural resources, it was decided to take a life-cycle approach that would monitor consumption from the cradle to the grave. The cradle or grave of natural resources is usually located outside the EU – in other words, the global aspects of natural resource consumption also play an important role. We will also focus on preventing a so-called “shifting of responsibility” towards those countries that produce raw materials or products or where waste products end up. This approach ties in perfectly with the life-cycle approach of the thematic strategy. The Netherlands has responded positively to the life-cycle approach, which is why the aim is to map out the environmental impact of using various natural resources, the natural resources where there is the greatest potential for improvement and the natural resources that must be made a priority in order to achieve sustainable management of these resources. This knowledge can then be used to implement targeted initiatives to reduce environmental impact. The knowledge generated by life-cycle analyses can also be used to set priorities for those resource flows that require action. It can also be seen from this dossier that we have succeeded in our efforts to involve stakeholders adequately and in time. For instance, an action item has been included in the Future Agenda that means the Cabinet will start working with industry in 2006 to map out Dutch consumption of natural resources and evaluate the environmental impact of this on the entire chain. This action item relates to the national implementation of the European strategy, which is based in large part on national programmes and measures.

17

This dossier also details our efforts in respect of the use of economic instruments. Financial barriers often make it difficult to opt for resources that have a lower environmental impact. Environmentally friendly is by no means always the cheapest option, which is why the deployment of economic instruments (such as waste levies) appears to be a logical and effective step to encourage environmentally-friendly operating methods. The thematic strategy for natural resources must be seen in connection with the notice by the Commission on biodiversity. In addition to the retention of diversity, this notice focuses on the sustainable use of ecosystem services (such as natural infestation suppression, maintenance of soil fertility, climate regulation and the supply of wood and proteins). Biodiversity falls under the remit of the LNV (Dutch Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality). 3.4 Review of the 6th EAP In 2002, the European Commission’s 6th EAP (Environmental Action Programme) was published. In this 6th EAP, which covers the period from 2002 to 2012, the Commission has opted for a new strategic approach to the European environmental policy, in the form of (seven) Thematic Strategies (TSs), namely for: air quality, natural resources, prevention & recycling of waste, the marine environment, pesticides, soil and the urban environment. All these strategies have now been published. In most cases, these strategies go hand-in-hand with legislation. The 6th EAP states that a review must be organised in 2006. Given that the review will be published too late for discussion at the Environmental Council meeting in December 2006, it is not expected to be discussed until 2007. At that time, the Council's conclusions will probably be available. Officially, the Commission’s review only needs to cover the progress made in implementation of the policy. However, we would like to see the Commission also look at the remaining period covered by the 6th EAP (i.e., until 2012). For instance: what are the most important challenges in the field of European environmental policy for this period and what does this mean for the prioritisation of the Commission’s work? The 6th EAP looks at almost all aspects of European environmental policy, which is why this dossier will be monitored very closely. VROM’s implementation of the recommendations relating to coordination of European policy in the Netherlands can also be seen clearly in the efforts made in respect of this dossier. For example, in this context too, there will need to be a focus on the relationship between quality goals and source policy and on uncoupling thematic strategies from the resulting legislation in the future. 3.5 European policy with spatial impact As set out above, the aim is to get a better grip on the (potential) consequences of European sector policy on spatial planning in our country, in order to play an active role in policy development and to exercise greater influence on the nature and content of EU policy that may affect spatial planning. The greater focus on the spatial impact of European legislation and the desire to bring in Dutch interests at an early stage in the policy development process at EU level have been incorporated into the Implementation Schedule for the Spatial Planning Memorandum (2006). The international section (the Netherlands in Europe) sets out the policy measures that must help to bring this about, namely: Measures resulting directly from European policy This is about establishing as quickly as possible the impact that the European legislation will have on Dutch spatial planning policy. In addition to translating European policy into national policy and legislation, these measures are designed to take a more pro-active approach to European policy in the making. There is no separate Council process for spatial issues, so the success of these efforts will depend largely on the contribution of Dutch viewpoints on spatial planning issues during the various expert committees.

18

Measures resulting from nationally formulated spatial planning goals This relates to action where national spatial planning goals are more likely to be achieved by co-ordinating policy with the neighbouring countries/regions in question. This relates to such issues as the retention of valuable cross-border open spaces and waters, the development of urban networks on both sides of the border and agreeing the cross-border infrastructure. In line with the guiding principle expounded by the Cabinet (“locally where possible, centrally where necessary”), cross-border co-operation must primarily be a task for local authorities. The state plays a facilitating role here and also helps to unblock bottlenecks. Where possible, the options for European territorial co-operation provided by the new cohesion policy regulation (Objective 3) will be utilised. Measures promoting territorial cohesion within the EU During the Dutch EU Presidency (2004), the European ministers responsible for spatial planning took two important decisions. They agreed that in 2007 they would draft an analysis of the “Territorial State and Perspectives of the European Union”, which intends to provide a better understanding of international spatial planning processes. They also agreed to draft a new European Territorial Agenda 2007–2010 that is intended to promote the co-ordination of EU policy with its impact on spatial development in the member states. In this way, we will contribute to both sustainable development and European competitiveness (the Lisbon strategy). Both products are to be placed on the agenda for the ministerial meeting scheduled for 24 and 25 May 2007 in Leipzig. Spatial planning investments from a European perspective From 2007, the European cohesion policy or structural policy will focus on promoting regional competitiveness and employment and European territorial co-operation. This work is being financed by the ERDF (the European Regional Development Fund) and the ESF (the European Social Fund). The member states must translate their cohesion policy into a National Strategic Reference Framework (NSRF) in which they set policy priorities. The Netherlands has made the goals set by the Lisbon strategy and the translation thereof into spatial planning measures, namely:

• having attractive regions and cities; • promoting innovation, entrepreneurial activity and a knowledge economy; and • creating more and better jobs

the core feature of the reference framework for the deployment of funds from the structural funds in the Netherlands (Objectives 2 and 3). In Part II of this international VROM agenda, we will look at the programmes that will be implemented to achieve these goals.10,11

10 Almost EUR 740 million will be released for Objective 2 (ERDF). This money will mainly be used to improve the attractiveness of cities and regions. The Netherlands has set up four programmes at regional level to implement the second objective. These programmes will be presented to the Commission in the spring. When they are approved by the Commission, the financial allocations will be announced and made definitive. 11 Objective 3 encompasses the successors to the existing programme INTERREG III and the research network ESPON. The structural funds’ new European territorial co-operation programmes will commence in 2007. The programmes will study the issues of innovation, the environment, strengthening the knowledge economy, accessibility and sustainable urban development. In respect of the negotiations currently underway on the new programmes, the Netherlands is concentrating on subjects that tie in with the policy goals set out in the Spatial Planning Memorandum.

19

20

Part II

21

1. Health and Environment 1.1 Pan-European Programme on Transport, Environment and Health The Vienna Convention of Joint Action (POJA; UN/ECE) and the London Charter (WHO) dealing with Transport, Environment and Health were signed in 1997 and 1999 respectively. After a joint high level meeting of the ECE12 and WHO13 in Geneva in July 2002, these processes were combined, and the Pan-European Action Programme (THE PEP) was accepted by the Ministers. With the Pan-European Programme on Transport, Environment and Health, the UN/ECE and the WHO wish to promote an integrated approach to the effects of transport on the environment and health. The programme’s priority areas are: · the integration of environmental and health aspects in transport policy; · demand-orientated management and modal shift; · improvement of urban transport; · cross-sectional subjects, including special attention to the needs of former Soviet Union

countries and South-East Europe, and especially sensitive areas (mountain regions in particular).

A tripartite steering committee will meet annually to carry out the action programme. The Steering Committee develops and carries out projects concerning the four priority areas, amongst others: (a) Clearing House on Transport, Environment and Health; (b) Sustainable and healthy urban transport and spatial planning; (c) Transport-related influences on health and their costs; (d) The promotion of walking and cycling in urban areas; (e) Practical guidelines for the institutional provision of mechanisms for integrated policy and decision-making; (f) Energy-efficient driving behaviour (The New Way of Driving). Dutch efforts during the forthcoming period The Netherlands will contribute financially to the execution of the action programme. The resources will be used to build up capacity in the area of sustainable and healthy urban transport and spatial planning in Eastern Europe, which has been given highest priority by the tripartite steering committee. In addition, the Netherlands will devote itself to measures for promoting cycling and the safety of children in traffic. Lastly, the Netherlands will dedicate itself to awareness, the international exchange of knowledge and joint research, in which the Netherlands will aim for optimal co-ordination with international programmes, for instance with the EU. The Ministries of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment (VROM) and Transport, Public Works and Water Management (V&W) have prime responsibility. 1.2 Health and Environment The Action Programme for Health and Environment (joint responsibility of the Ministries of VROM and VWS) has been in operation since 2002. This programme fulfils the 1994 WHO agreement, in which member countries agreed to establish a “National Environmental and Health Action Plan” (NEHAP). This action programme also fulfils the policy programme on Environment and Health of NMP4. This programme, consisting of 36 activities, was the starting point for policy. The programme of activities focuses on anchoring and integrating health and environment in public health policy, environmental policy, indoor environment, risk communication with citizens, and a healthy local living environment. The OESO and the WHO are currently carrying out a cost-benefit analysis of environmental and health measures. The Netherlands is involved in this inquiry via the RIVM (National Institute of Public Health and the Environment). In the spring of 2007, there will be a mid-term review of the Children’s Environmental and Health Action Plan (CEHAP). This will result in recommendations for the final two years of the

12 Economic Commission for Europe, in association with the UN 13 World Health Organisation, part of the UN

22

Action Programme for Health and Environment. There will be a Ministerial Conference on environment and health in 2008. Dutch efforts in the forthcoming period The Netherlands supports further stimulation of a broad approach, as well as the integration of health and environment, with the aim of achieving more attention for the (indirect) health enhancing effects of environmental factors. 1.3 PRTR and E-PRTR The PRTR protocol was created under the Aarhus Convention: the protocol for a ‘pollutant release and transfer register’, i.e., a pollution registration system. The protocol’s aim is to increase the public’s access to information about pollution due to emissions, by setting up national registers. These registers must, amongst others, be accessible free of charge, easy to search through and contain data on at least 86 polluting substances. These data will be compiled via compulsory reports from companies. The protocol has not yet come into operation. This will happen as soon as there are 16 parties. At the moment there are two parties, Luxemburg and the European Community. Where the EU is concerned, the EPER (European Pollutant Emission Register, see www.eper.cec.eu.int) has been in existence since 2004. This will now be replaced by a European PRTR (E-PRTR), which is largely based on the protocol. This register, based on the data of 2007, is to be published for the first time in the autumn of 2009. The E-PRTR will be more comprehensive than the EPER and will include emissions into the atmosphere, water and soil and waste transports, from both large installations and various other sources. All this has been laid down in a European regulation. The Netherlands is currently implementing this regulation and will probably complete it in the summer of 2007, at which time the Netherlands can become a party to the protocol. It is anticipated that many European countries will undergo a similar parallel procedure, with the result that many EU countries will become parties to the protocol in 2007. The chances that the protocol will come into operation in 2008 are good. The first meeting of the parties will be held shortly thereafter. Dutch efforts in the forthcoming period During the ensuing year, the efforts of the Netherlands will be concentrated on converting the E-PRTR regulation into Dutch regulations in order to comply with the European requirements and to enable ratification of the protocol. On an international level, the Netherlands will continue to devote its efforts as before, to the preparation of the first meeting of the parties to the protocol. The main concern is to establish an institutional structure, such as determining the rules of procedure, an adherence system and potential subsidiary bodies. 1.4 Convention on Long-Range Trans-boundary Air Pollution (LRTAP) The Convention on Long-Range Trans-boundary Air Pollution came into being in 1979 under the auspices of the UNECE (United Nations Economic Commission for Europe). The Convention (LRTAP) came into operation in 1983 and now has 50 Parties, including the EEC, the USA, Russia and Canada. The system is being developed on the basis of Protocols, of which eight have been prepared to date. Traditionally, the Convention is involved with classic environmental pollution such as acidification, eutrophication (NOx and NH3), and ozone at ground level. During the last ten years, heavy metals and persistent pollutants (POPs) have been included in the Convention’s regime. The POP protocol led to the worldwide Stockholm Convention of POPs and UNEP programmes for mercury, cadmium and lead. Dutch efforts in the forthcoming period The Netherlands will devote its efforts to contributing to the review of the Gothenburg Protocol and it is expected that the negotiations regarding the revision of the Protocol will start in 2008. One of the Netherlands’ important objectives is still to bring about a synergy with climate policy. The Netherlands will apply itself to the speedy completion of the POP Protocol review and advocates starting negotiations for its revision. The Netherlands also believes that the review of the HM Protocol (heavy metals) can be completed and that the revision of the Protocol can be started.

23

1.5 Montreal Protocol Via the Montreal Protocol, international agreements are being made to reduce, and ultimately completely phase out, the production and consumption of substances that affect the ozone layer. In 2007, it will be exactly twenty years since the Protocol was established and it has developed into one of the most successful environmental conventions. With its 189 Parties, the Protocol has virtually universal coverage. The important subjects and challenges for the forthcoming period are the assessment of applications for the exemption of methyl bromide, the possibilities of reducing the use of methyl bromide for quarantine and pre-shipment applications (QPS), the possible addition of the substance n-propyl bromide to the control system of the Protocol and the accelerated phasing out of HCFK consumption in developing countries. With the twentieth anniversary of the Protocol in 2007 in mind, it can be assumed that the Parties will discuss the most important new challenges for the next decennium during the next two years. Next year, the emphasis in the EU will be on the accelerated phasing out of HCFK production within the EU, and on the possible addition of new substances. In 2007, the Commission will also evaluate exemptions to the Regulation regarding substances that destroy the ozone layer (Regulation 2037/2000) as reflected in Appendix VII of the Regulation. Dutch efforts in the forthcoming period In association with the EU, the Netherlands will continue to be actively involved in these subjects, so that the challenges sketched above will be tackled energetically and effectively. Special attention will be given to the further improvement of the adherence system under the Protocol and to discussing the challenges of the next 10 years; effectiveness, environmental integrity and good support for, and control of, the implementation of commitments. Attention will also be paid to the relationship between the climate and substances that affect the ozone layer. 1.6 Stockholm Convention The Stockholm Convention on persistent organic pollutants (POPs) was the first step on the road towards a global approach to substances that represent serious risks to people and the environment. POPs are chemicals that hardly degrade and travel long distances, even into regions where they have never been used or produced (such as the polar regions), and accumulate in the food chain. The Convention was realized in 2001 (the Netherlands has been a Party since 2002), came into operation in 2004 and currently concentrates on 12 substances. It is closely related to the POP Protocol and the ECE Convention on Long-Range Trans-boundary Air Pollution (see 1.4). Since 2004, the Convention provides for a worldwide ban on the production and sale of eight pesticides (aldrin, molecular chlorine, DDT, dieldrin, endrin, heptachlor, mirex, and camphechlor) and two industrial chemicals (hexachlorobenzene and PCBs). Global commitments have been laid down for two types of by products, which are released during combustion (dioxins and furanes), aimed at limiting their emission as much as possible; the ultimate objective being their elimination. An integral part of the Convention is the possibility of adding new POPs, based on risk management and supplemented by the precautionary principle of scientific uncertainty. The Convention also includes a mechanism for registering, evaluating and gradually phasing out temporary exceptions to this ban, such as was made for DDT, for instance, which is used to combat malaria in developing countries. At the same time, developing countries are given support in the form of capacity increase and financial aid to enable them to honour their commitments to the Convention. The Convention now has almost 130 Parties. The first meeting of the Parties (COP-1) in May 2005 was a success. Amongst others, resolutions were made regarding organisational matters (a regulation of order, a financial regulation, procedures regarding arbitration and the settlement of disputes), the formation of a POP review committee which assesses proposals for the inclusion of substances to be added to the Convention, technical support and capacity development to developing countries and

24

countries with transitional economies, performance modalities for the GEF, which functions as an interim financial mechanism, technical requirements for removing and processing waste containing POPs and cleansing polluted locations, research, monitoring and evaluation of the effectiveness of the Convention and the possibility of a synergy and improved co-operation between the chemicals conventions (Basel, Rotterdam, Stockholm) as a prelude to restructuring the management of chemicals within UNEP and the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (SAICM, see 1.9). The question of setting up an adherence system was deferred until COP-2. COP-2 in May 2006 was beset by a number of difficult discussions, which are certain to recur in future COPs. Nevertheless, considerable progress was achieved with the actual implementation of the Convention. The most important discussion was about finances with regard to technical help, adherence and synergy with other chemical conventions. A number of developing countries are afraid they will receive a smaller pot of money if co-operation between conventions continues. They also regard an adherence system more as a punishment than a way to receive more help with implementation. Important resolutions were made regarding the first review of the Convention’s financial mechanism and a process which is to lead to an evaluation of the Convention’s effectiveness at COP-4. The discussion about the adherence system will be continued during COP-3. Similar subjects will be raised at the Rotterdam Convention (see 1.7). The dissatisfaction of developing countries regarding available financial and personnel resources, their intention to initiate a different financial mechanism instead of the GEF and the lack of political priority that developing countries attach to chemicals management remain a problem where implementation is concerned. These subjects will certainly receive much attention during COP-3 (May 2007). Dutch efforts in the forthcoming period The Netherlands has always adopted an active stance during the preparation of this Convention and still plays an active role now, while it is coming into force and is being implemented. One of the most important aims of the Netherlands (and the EU) is that new substances are added to the Convention in order to contribute towards achieving the 2020 objective for chemicals, which was agreed at the summit conference for sustainable development in 2002. In 2005, in accordance with the EU Council’s conclusions, the EU supported the Norwegian and Mexican nomination of two new substances to be added to the Convention, namely pentabromodiphenylether and HCH(Lindan). Moreover, the EU itself nominated chlorodecon and hexabromobiphenylether, which are already part of the POP Protocol as candidate substances under the Stockholm Convention. In 2006, the EU also nominated octabromodiphenylether, pentachlorobenzene, and short-chained chloroparaffins as candidate substances under the Stockholm Convention. Where technical aspects are concerned, such as the best available techniques (BAT), and best environmental practices (BEP), the EU’s efforts are focused on close and effective co-operation with the Basel Convention, where the expertise required in these areas is available. Where financial mechanisms for the support of developing countries and transition economies are concerned, the Netherlands follows a straight line by not advocating the establishment of new multilateral funds, but making as much use as possible of the strengthening of the Global Environment Facility (GEF). The starting point is to strengthen capacity in developing countries and transition economies regarding chemicals management, and especially the integration of institutional structures related to chemicals. Lastly, the Netherlands keenly supports a strong adherence system. 1.7 Rotterdam Convention With the huge rise in the international production, trade and use of chemicals, concerns regarding the possible harmful effects of these products have also increased during the last decennia. Developing countries in particular, lack the necessary technical and administrative infrastructure needed to assess the risks attached to these substances and to institute adequate measures.

25

The Rotterdam Convention came into operation in 2004 and provides for binding agreements between the parties to the convention regarding the export of substances that are strictly limited in other parts of the world. The parties can nominate industrial chemicals or pesticides for inclusion under the Convention. These substances may then only be imported if the importing country gives specific permission. This is called the PIC procedure (Prior Informed Consent). The Convention also compels the sharing of knowledge when countries request it, so that they are able to form an opinion regarding the intended importation of chemicals. The Convention now has more than 100 Parties. The first meeting of the Parties (September 2004) resulted in the formal start of the PIC procedure for which, incidentally, an interim PIC procedure was already in force. Resolutions were also made regarding procedural matters and the Chemicals Review Committee, which assesses proposed substances for inclusion in the Convention, was set up. COP-2 (September 2005) was able to concentrate more on the implementation of the Convention, as all the conditions for putting it into operation had now been met. The focus was on administrative matters, which are currently also the subject for discussion under the Stockholm Convention; the process for adding substances to the Convention, financial aid to developing countries and a mechanism that will simplify and facilitate adherence. Questions regarding the synergy between chemical conventions were also raised. COP-3 was held in October 2006. The Netherlands (a Party since 2000), participates in the meetings in which convention agreements are made and in the committee of experts, which assesses candidate substances for the Convention. This is done to ensure that substances that are considered for the PIC procedure will actually fall under the Convention. Dutch efforts in the forthcoming period In order to facilitate the implementation of convention commitments, the Netherlands made a voluntary contribution to the secretariat in addition to its fixed annual contribution in 2005, with the aim of encouraging the active participation of exporting and importing countries, good communication between competent authorities and good administrative implementation. It is also important that the criteria of the convention procedures adequately enable developing countries to nominate dangerous substances. In addition, the Netherlands also desires an adequate system that will support and stimulate adherence to the convention agreements. As far as the other chemicals conventions are concerned, the Netherlands focuses on good, policy-orientated co-ordination between the Conventions, the use of synergy and the prevention of overlapping commitments. 1.8 Basel Convention In addition to the environmentally responsible management of hazardous waste materials, the Basel Convention (1989) also focuses on prevention, processing as close as possible to the place of origin, and minimisation of trans-border transportation. A notification system has been included in the Basel Convention to prevent the dumping of dangerous waste materials in other countries. This, together with a number of OESO resolutions, was implemented in the EU Waste Shipment Regulation. To counteract irresponsible export to developing countries, the export of dangerous substances, even for useful purposes, from OECD countries to non-OECD countries is prohibited by an amendment to the Convention. The export of dangerous waste materials has now largely ceased, in spite of the fact that the ban is not yet formally in force. However, the EU has formally included the ban in its regulation. Although much has been achieved, a number of important questions have not yet been settled. Sea-going vessels are still being broken up in a manner that is unfriendly to people and the environment, especially by dumping them on Asian beaches. This year, a large number of single hull tankers will also be taken out of circulation due, amongst others, to pressure exerted by the EU. A global solution must be found to this problem via co-operation between the Basel Convention, the IMO (International Maritime Organisation) and the ILO (International Labour Organisation). The 7th meeting of the Basel Convention made three resolutions regarding dumped ships, environmentally-friendly management of demolition ships and co-operation with the IMO and the ILO.

26

Furthermore, electronic waste and the dumping thereof is increasing in developing countries. The Waste Electric and Electronic Equipment Directive, which has been in force since 2002, will come under pressure if no global solution is found. Lastly, the successful waste policy in the Netherlands is resulting in large amounts of waste intended for useful applications (green list of waste): paper, glass, plastics, wood and of course, ferrous and non-ferrous metals, which are sold worldwide. Obstructions to trading waste for re-use are a threat to the success of the Netherlands’ waste policy. Dutch efforts in the forthcoming period The efforts of the EU during COP8 of the Basel Convention (November 2006 in Nairobi) were discussed at the Environment Council of 23 October 2006. Due, amongst others, to the questions concerning Probo Koala and Otapan, the Netherlands sent a letter from Secretary of State Van Geel to Environmental Commissioner Dimas, appealing for a careful examination of the instruments for waste and navigation, improved legislation in this regard, an invitation to the IMO to evaluate the harbour reception installations system and apply the principles of the Basel Convention and to improve enforcement. The Netherlands also suggested that an EU strategy focused on adequate enforcement be set up, and where the demolition of ships is concerned, a resolution by the Commission to draw up an EU strategy and to also request the Commission to include the necessity of providing sufficient demolition capacity in the EU. A number of these proposals found resonance in the Chairmanship Conclusions, which were reached during the Environment Council of 23 October 2006 and which were signed by 24 member countries. During COP8, the Netherlands will choose a formation which is in line with the Chairmanship Conclusions and will focus on the following subjects in particular: - Probo Koala: Supplemental to the general considerations devoted to this matter in the

Chairmanship Conclusions and if other Parties request it, the Netherlands will exchange the available factual data resulting from the various investigations. Estonia is also expected to provide explanations regarding the criminal investigation of the delivery of waste to the port of Paldiski by the Probo Koala. As far as this issue is concerned, a special effort should be made to review the EU Port Reception Facilities Directive (2000/59/EC) in 2007.

- Demolition ships: The Netherlands will explain the course of events during the voyage of the Otapan and emphasise the lack of facilities for the responsible demolition of sea-going vessels. In 2007, efforts will mainly be concentrated on following EU strategy for demolition ships and investigating the realization of sufficient capacity within the EU.

- Financing: It is most important for the future of the Basel Convention that a sustainable solution to financing is found. The EU member countries make a major contribution towards financing the Convention. However, there is no support from the large member countries in particular, for increasing the budget. The Netherlands will appeal to the countries to increase their support for a realistic budget increase; the Chairmanship Conclusions provide a good basis in this regard.

- Discussion on synergy: In order to bring about further co-operation and the integration of the Basel, PIC, and POP Conventions, with the aim of improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the MEAs, new proposals (of which clustering might be one option) must be worked out. Furthermore, the developing countries in particular, have indicated that they are now hardly able to meet the commitments required by the various conventions. The question of synergies between the chemicals and waste conventions is now connected to the process of promoting UN system-wide coherence and the discussion on International Environmental Governance. In 2007, a contribution is to be made to the possible setting up of a Joint Working Group, which will concentrate particularly on proposals that will provide a framework for co-operation in practice and in developing countries.

1.9 SAICM: Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management In 2003, the UNEP Management Council decided to develop a global chemicals strategy, the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (SAICM). SAICM is intended as a global overarching strategy to ensure the co-ordination, synergy and priorities of global instruments and conventions, in order to realize the World Summit on Sustainable

27

Developments (WSSD, Johannesburg 2002) objective for chemicals: minimising the harmful effects of chemicals on public health and the environment in 2020. SAICM consists of:

1. an overarching policy strategy 2. an action programme with concrete measures for realizing the Johannesburg

objectives (global plan of action), and 3. resolutions regarding the organisation of implementation:

a. Ministers’ conferences (ICCMs) will be held in 2009, 2012, 2015 and 2020, b. a supporting UNEP/WHO SAICM secretariat has been instituted, c. A Quick Start Programme has been set up to support the initial capacity

build-up and needs assessments for developing countries, with a view to the structured provision of technical and financial support to developing countries with regard to chemicals management.

A large number of the activities related to hazardous materials under existing conventions are related to each other and require management and prioritisation, which the SAICM must provide on a non-institutional basis. This requires good co-ordination and co-operation between the various international organisations (ILO, WHO, FAO, UNEP, GEF, OECD). The relevant legally binding instruments consist, amongst others, of the Rotterdam Convention realized in 1998, which contains an approval procedure for the export of environmentally hazardous substances and is therefore the first means of preventing the dumping of hazardous substances. The Stockholm Convention regarding POPs, together with, for instance, the Montreal Protocol regarding substances affecting the ozone layer, also leads to the phasing out of certain groups of environmentally hazardous substances. The Basel Convention regulates the management of trans-boundary transportation of hazardous waste and its disposal and the Protocol on persistent organic substances of the 1979 Convention regarding trans-boundary air pollution over large distances (POP protocol) regulates the reduction of atmospheric pollution by POPs. This protocol is geographically limited to the UN/ECE region. Dutch efforts in the forthcoming period Where the SAICM is concerned, the Netherlands is aiming for an efficient mechanism that will guarantee the implementation of the Johannesburg objectives. The Netherlands is conducting active environmental diplomacy, which contributes towards achieving national policy objectives and the promotion of worldwide sustainable development and integration, as well as strengthening EU environmental policy, both within the European Union, throughout Europe and within the UN framework. In this context, SAICM is regarded as having a directive function in the area of international chemical management, focused on improving cost effectiveness, synergy, efficiency, mutual coherence and levelling where possible. 1.10 UNEP Chemicals Programme During the UNEP Management Council in February 2007, the progress of activities for implementing the UNEP chemicals programme will be discussed as agreed during UNEP GC.23, and will include subjects such as the worldwide situation of partnerships focused on counteracting the risks to people and the environment resulting from the use and worldwide application of mercury. The question will also be raised of whether the partnership instrument will be adequate to realize the ambition of the increased phasing out of mercury. With regard to the latter, it is relevant that within the EU context, a statutory ban on the export of mercury outside the EU is now being prepared, which is in line with the action plan of the EU to advocate a pro-active approach towards the phasing out of mercury and to prevent it being re-introduced onto the market. The Netherlands supports the Commission on this subject. 1.11 REACH On 29 October 2003, the Commission made a proposal for the thorough revision of the EU chemicals policy in the form of the REACH Regulation (Reach stands for a system for the Registration, Evaluation, and Authorisation of Chemicals). The proposal replaces more than sixty guidelines and regulations, namely the Hazardous Substances Guideline, the Existing Substances Regulation, the Marketing and Use Directive and all underlying guidelines and

28

regulations. Apart from greater uniformity within the existing EU regulations for chemicals, the proposal aims to create a new approach to the substances policy that will signify a decrease in the administrative charges paid by businesses and that trade and industry will carry more responsibility. The objectives of the legislation package are: the protection of people and the environment against the consequences of the use of substances; an improvement of the competitive position and the innovative ability of European trade and industry; greater insight into the properties and risks of substances; the advancement of alternative substance tests without the use of laboratory animals. The purpose is to impose the obligation on companies that produce, import and/or use chemicals to gather information on their properties, assess the risks attached to their use and take the measures necessary to control any risks they may have established. Current status In the letters of 22 November14, 29 November15 and 13 December 200516, the Lower House was informed of the Netherlands’ position before the political accord on REACH was determined during the first reading. In the letter of 22 December 200517, the House was informed of the results of the extra session of the Dutch Council for Competitiveness on 13 December 2005, where the political accord mentioned was determined. During the Austrian Chairmanship, the political accord regarding REACH was assimilated in the text of the joint standpoint as accepted by the Environment Council on 27 June 2006. In the meantime, the European Commission sent the Council’s joint standpoint, together with the Council’s motivation regarding the amendments of the European Parliament, to the European Parliament in July. According to the appropriate procedure, the period of 3 months within which the European Parliament must complete its assessment during the second reading began on 4 September 2006, the date of the following session of the European Parliament. The REACH proposal is now before the European Parliament for its second reading. On 10 October last, the Environment Commission of the European Parliament voted on the amendments introduced in the Council’s Joint Standpoint. The Council and Parliament are currently negotiating, with the aim of reaching agreement during the 2nd reading. Dutch efforts in the forthcoming period Under the Finnish Chairmanship, the Council already began preparing its position in July (2006), based on an as yet incomplete draft report prepared by the Chairman of the Parliament’s Environment Commission, which the Parliament is now considering. The Parliament’s amendments regarding Registration and Authorisation are not yet known. Moreover, the Finnish Chairmanship only wishes to deliberate on this subject in the Council once the Environment Commission has voted on it. The Council is to continue its assessment of the Parliament’s current amendments in September and October (2006), whilst the Finnish Chairmanship will maintain close contact with the European Parliament in order to achieve as much convergence as possible between the standpoints of the Council and Parliament. However, it is clear that both the European Commission and the Council are, in principle, inclined to adhere to the joint standpoint as far as possible. This is also the Dutch position in the Council, in which the Netherlands bases itself on the starting points mentioned in Appendix 1 of the aforementioned letter of 22 November 2005. At the beginning of November 2006, a letter was received detailing the introduction of REACH in the Netherlands (information and implementation route). 1.12 Global nitrogen strategy Nitrogen is excessively present in nature in the form of N2, which is very stable and non-reactive. For the benefit of food production and as a result of energy production, stable N2 is transformed into forms of nitrogen which can easily react, i.e., reactive nitrogen (Nr). In food 14 Parliamentary papers II 2005-06, 21 501-08, no. 211 15 Parliamentary papers II 2005-06, 21 501-08, no. 213 16 Parliamentary papers II 2005-06, 21 501-08, no. 214 17 Parliamentary papers II 2005-06, 21 501-30, no. 129

29

production this concerns the production of artificial fertiliser, in energy production it concerns nitrogen oxides, which are released during the burning of fuel. In the mid-nineties it was found that the natural excess of N2 in Europe plays a key role in a number of persistent environmental problems (acidification, manure pollution, climate change), and that this excess is also harmful to public health (e.g., respiratory problems and premature death). The nature and degree of nitrogen problems in the world varies from place to place. The required policy has been put into operation in the EU and ECE regions and has resulted in a decrease in emissions, however sustainable levels of nitrogen for people and the environment are still beyond reach. The ultimate aim is to optimise the use of nitrogen in food production, and simultaneously to minimise the negative effects of N2 resulting from food and energy production on people and nature. The following steps play a part:

1. worldwide recognition of the nitrogen problem; 2. closer investigation into the problem, UNEP together with INI (International Nitrogen

Initiative); 3. exchange of knowledge regarding solutions; 4. identifying new solutions; 5. Convention on Long-Range Trans-boundary Air Pollution as an example for other

regions that wish to achieve more integrated continental agreements to solve the nitrogen problem.

Dutch efforts in the forthcoming period Since 1998, the Netherlands has been involved in organising international nitrogen conferences, whose aim has always been the exchange of up-to-date information on nitrogen problems and solutions. The International Nitrogen Initiative is the result of the second nitrogen conference. The aim of the INI is to draw worldwide attention to the nitrogen problem. The INI is fostered by regional centres, one in each continent. During the third international nitrogen conference in 2004, the Nanjing Declaration was adopted, which calls for an improvement in nitrogen management. In co-operation with other players, the Netherlands is currently exploring how to widen UNEP’s work and promote international co-operation on this subject. 1.13 Thematic strategy for pesticides In order to further reduce the effect of pesticides on people and the environment and bring about a more sustainable use of pesticides, the Commission recently proposed a thematic strategy for the sustainable use of pesticides (TS-SUP).

This strategy is accompanied by a framework directive for the sustainable use of pesticides but it will also affect the revision of existing regulations (in particular the regulation replacing the directive on the admission of plant protection products, 91/414).

The current European directive is aimed at the admission of pesticides. In practice, the risks to human health and the environment are largely dependent on the way in which these products are applied. The strategy for pesticides will focus precisely on this subject and more pressure will be applied to the aspects of registration of use, training requirements, and stimulating integrated agriculture and correct use.

The strategy expresses this in the following objectives: 1) To minimise the hazards and risks to health and the environment due to the use of

pesticides; 2) To improve control over the trading and use of pesticides; 3) To limit hazardous substances, amongst others by replacing hazardous substances

with less hazardous substances; 4) To stimulate crops for which the application of plant protection products is less, or not

at all necessary; 5) To develop monitoring and registration systems for measuring progress.

The framework directive proposes the following measures:

• Each member state is to draw up an action plan stating how they intend to achieve the five objectives mentioned above. In order for the Netherlands to be able to continue to fulfil its commitment to the plan, a new national action plan will

30

eventually have to be drawn up for the period after 2010 (as a sequel to the Policy Document on Sustainable Plant Protection); this plan must be reviewed every five years. No final date has been set for this periodic review;

• A system for training professional users must be established, whose aim is ‘no use without training’, and in which the reduction of use is clearly emphasised.

• The general public must be informed about (the dangers of) the use of plant protection products.

• Examination and inspection of crop spraying equipment; the existing Dutch licensing system for crop spraying will have to be adjusted on a number of small points, such as the information on labels.

• Limiting aerial crop spraying to “not unless”. This must only be allowed in situations where there is no other control method and where its use provides clear advantages and has environmental advantages compared to other application methods; this will be regulated in the Netherlands when the new Plant Protection Products and Biocides Act is introduced (now at an advanced stage).

• Further protection (with regard to 91/414) of the aquatic environment. The location of areas in which only limited, or no use of plant protection products may be made, such as areas indicated on the basis of the Habitat Directive, areas accessible to the public at large and water abstraction areas. The Netherlands does not yet meet this commitment and still has to make a start on implementing it.

• Regulations for the storage and packaging of pesticides, with a view to preventing risks to human health and the environment.

• Promotion of the low use of plant protection and the setting up of a Europe-wide standard for “integrated cultivation”. (This means that all sorts of factors that can reduce the use of plant protection products must be taken into account in cultivation). From 2014, these standards will be obligatory in the entire Union.

• Setting up harmonised indicators for measuring the progress of the strategy’s objectives.

• Setting up an information exchange system at European level. Dutch efforts in the forthcoming period The Netherlands can relate to the submitted proposal to a large extent. However, the Netherlands will be critical regarding the administrative burdens. The Netherlands will also request that attention is paid to anchoring a number of the strategy measures in the Regulation for the Admission of Pesticides, as these measures will otherwise have no purpose and that some points of the regulations for pesticides could become too fragmented. Users and applicants must clearly know where they stand. These measures include:

• The limitation of aerial crop spraying to a ‘not unless’ stipulation; • Further protection of the aquatic environment; • Rules for packaging and storage. Limitations regarding the use of plant protection

products must be stated here. Lastly, the Netherlands will appeal for the realization of uniform standards for spraying equipment that are linked to existing regulations, in particular the Machine Directive (2006/42/EC). 1.14 Thematic strategy for soil In Europe (as elsewhere in the world), soil is not being used in a sustainable way, causing a variety of problems resulting from development and economic activities (including agriculture): pollution, depletion (loss of organic substances), erosion and loss of soil structure. This leads to the reduction and impairment of the useful functions that soil fulfils for mankind: water purification, food production, regulation of substance cycles (carbon, nitrogen, etc.). This has implications for a variety of social sectors: area planning, the landscape, the economy and environmental protection. In the sixth Environmental Action Programme, the European Commission already announced that it is to present a Soil Strategy, whose aim is to formulate a policy directed at the

31

sustainable use of soil, protection and where necessary, restoration of the soil’s properties and functions. The Strategy and accompanying directive (which appeared at the end of September 2006), must also contribute to an integration of the approach to soil in other (national and European) policy areas. Eight specific hazards are named: erosion, reduction of the organic substances content, salinization, decreased biodiversity, compaction, landslides, sealing and pollution. The European Commission has indicated that member states must institute measures to prevent these hazards from occurring, that they must take mitigating measures and that they must restore degraded soil where possible. The Commission considers that a legal instrument is required for this purpose, namely a directive. Dutch efforts in the forthcoming period In substance, the proposal for a European soil strategy corresponds well with Dutch policy as formulated in the soil policy note (December 2003) and in a number of legal frameworks (e.g., the Soil Protection Act). The strategy can be seen as supporting the Dutch policy that is already in force. The Netherlands finds it important that other European countries also have a sustainable soil policy, amongst others for the sake of a level playing field (soil pollution), the trans-boundary effects (in particular water management, qualitative and quantitative) and food safety. The proposal also contributes towards the objectives of the international biodiversity policy, the framework directive on water, the future groundwater directive, the nitrate directive and the climate objectives. From a practical point of view, a proposal for a directive may clearly have (negative) consequences for the Netherlands. It will probably entail a great deal of work resulting from the obligatory changes to Dutch legislation, without providing proportional added value. The consequences will affect the following in particular: o Dutch soil policy is a carefully connected whole, with centralised and decentralised

responsibilities. o Due to the proposed legal instrument, the proposal will probably lead to an increase in the

administrative load and costs for the public and private parties. o There is a risk that there will be undesirable changes to the directive due to amendments

by other member states or the EP, such as the inclusion of quantitative standards or objectives that deviate from Dutch policy.

The Netherlands will request that attention be paid to these points of concern. This concerns a dossier on spatial effects. 1.15 Thematic strategy on the urban environment Approximately 80% of Europe’s citizens live in urban areas, where the effects of many environmental problems are most felt. Bad air quality, noise pollution, neglect of built-up areas and the lack of strategic planning lead to health problems and a lower quality of life. Amongst others, the problems in European cities are caused by the fact that the effects of resolutions on the environment have not been fully considered and that there is no systematic approach to a healthy urban environment. At the behest of the European Council and the European Parliament, a thematic strategy for urban environments has been added to the sixth Environmental Action Programme in order to arrive at a package of measures that will achieve a healthy living environment for all European citizens. The Commission has made a number of proposals for conurbations with more than 100,000 inhabitants. The Commission published the Thematic Strategy on the Urban Environment on 11 January 2006. In June 2006, council conclusions were adopted by the environment council in June 2006. In accordance with the Council’s wishes, the Commission has relinquished its earlier intention to require member states to produce plans for so-called integrated environment management and sustainable urban transport at municipal and regional level. This

32

corresponds with the Dutch input during the preparation stage. By not making planning obligatory for local authorities, opportunities are created for local initiatives that are more in line with the intended objectives, namely the integrated and area-orientated improvement of the living environment in cities. The Netherlands considers the EU’s attention to the quality of urban environments to be positive and that in substance, the ideas of the Commission largely fit in with the Dutch integrated environmental and spatial policy. The Commission’s intentions, such as promoting the development of knowledge and its dissemination, contributing to the promotion of expertise, stimulating the use of EU funds, and strengthening the coherence of EU policy implementation, which works through to local and regional level, are positive as far as the Netherlands is concerned. The Commission wishes to stimulate initiatives in the various member states in this way. The Commission then wants the member states to report regularly on the activities that have been undertaken based on this strategy and wishes to hold a consultation round on this subject in 2009. As far as the Netherlands is concerned, specific attention to urban water problems (flooding and quality) is lacking, especially as related to climate developments. Dutch efforts in the forthcoming period The Netherlands supports the Commission’s analysis that sustainable urban planning has a large influence on the quality of the lives of inhabitants of urban areas. The thematic strategy on urban environment is an important starting point for an integrated approach at local level to a number of challenges such as air quality. In order to ensure the strategy’s successful impact, the Netherlands thinks it is important for the Commission to devote attention to the following points:

• Clarity regarding the criteria to be used and the nature of the projects to be submitted in order to be considered for financial funding from the Cohesion, Structure and Research funds. For instance, one of the criteria could be that the project to be submitted is supported by one of the planning diagrams featured in the strategy.

• Under this strategy, the research resources must be specifically allocated to facilitating projects that yield knowledge and experience on integrated policy development and implementation regarding the environment and area planning, rather than being limited to the development of more sector and technical knowledge. Linking financial subsidies to integrated projects promotes an area-orientated policy, which increases the strength of the projects.

• The Commission will have an explicit role in co-ordinating and, where necessary, implementing the activities to be carried out in the member states. In situations where central co-ordination is lacking, the implementation of this strategy will quickly disintegrate. In its co-ordinating role, the Commission could consider setting up an implementation programme for this strategy.

• An active effort by the Commission regarding the design of its own guidelines and other policy proposals that will aid integrated implementation.

• To ensure the active development of basic policy, inasmuch as this is part of the Commission’s tasks (the promotion of clean vehicles and fuels), as well as facilitating area-based differences.

• It is important that the available statistical information corresponds as much as possible with indicators and monitoring. Agreements regarding the further development of new indicators must take the INSPIRE directive into account.

The Netherlands will take a positive attitude towards the further development of the strategy. This concerns a dossier on spatial effects. 1.16 International noise: traffic emissions Approximately 100 million people in the EU suffer from serious inconvenience caused by the noise of road, rail and air traffic, which results in health problems. ‘Noise’ is the second environmental item on the illness list of the Dutch National Institute of Public Health and the Environment (RIVM). This is the reason for statutory protection levels. Strong measures are necessary to keep pace with the increase in traffic.

33

Measures against the transmission of noise can be put in place at national and local level (screens and embankments), or even on individual houses (façade insulation). However, it is more efficient and considerably more cost-effective to tackle the cause of the noise itself. Calculations indicate that billions can be saved in the Netherlands with causal measures (making traffic less noisy). Amounts of 40 billion Euros per dB(A) have been mentioned with regard to the whole of Europe. Causal measures are therefore essential. Road traffic Regulations for vehicles and tyres are generated by the UN/ECE. As the EC represents 25 member states, decision making in Brussels regarding the position adopted by the EU is important. Developments within the UN and the EU focus primarily on synchronisation rather than on improving environmental achievements: the same requirements must apply everywhere, on a level with which all products can comply. The vehicle directive (70/157) is a good example of this: the limits have in the meantime been increased three times. Due to changes in measuring methods however, each increase has been amply compensated for. The recent directive for tyres reflects the same picture: the limits have been set at a level with which all tyres on the market can easily comply. There is therefore no benefit to the environment in either case. Change is on the way, however. More and more countries appear to want an effective approach to the causes. This increases the possibility that sharper measures will be introduced in the EU. Dutch efforts in the forthcoming period Efforts are being made in co-operation with the Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management, to increase the noise standards of the existing method by 2-3 dB(A). The aim is also to arrive at a future system of standards that uses a different method of measuring. With regard to the tyre directive, the aim is to raise the standard by 6 dB(A) in a maximum of two steps. Research commissioned by the Commission shows that this can be achieved. Although the so-called low frequencies cause as much nuisance and are much more noticeable inside houses, they have not yet been included in the regulations as such. This should certainly be pointed out when the type testing method is next up for change. Rail traffic The noise level requirements for railway stock are determined by the EU in the Interoperability Directive, to which Technical Specifications (TSIs) are attached, stating the technical requirements. The TSIs only apply to new stock. The requirements were determined recently. There are no requirements for existing stock. It is anticipated that brake-block systems, which make the wheels run more quietly, will be approved by the EU within two years. The Commission aims to make the use of these brake-block systems (the so-called LL blocks) obligatory. This would have to be done by changing the TSI for Freight Wagons. Dutch efforts in the forthcoming period The Netherlands will keep encouraging and supporting the Commission in committing quickly to the use of LL blocks. This concerns a dossier on spatial effects.

34

2. Water, seas and oceans Protecting the seas and oceans will continue to be a special point of interest for international environmental policy during the coming period. The Netherlands will propagate the importance of good ecological and chemical water quality at national, regional and global levels. In the meantime, the ecosystem approach to managing and using seas, oceans and rivers is considered to be of great importance. The Netherlands stimulates the development of this approach. Although the operation of this (complex) concept has not yet been clearly worked out, most countries are currently willing to take the ecosystem approach into account in their (economic) activities to a greater or lesser extent, based on the principle of precaution. The Ministers who met during the World Water Forum in Mexico in 2006 also indicated that we must do more to protect the ecosystems of our seas, oceans and rivers. The UN is also talking about the necessity of applying ourselves to the preservation of marine ecosystems. The Ministers who met during the 6th North Sea Ministers’ Conference in May 2006 discussed the effects of shipping and fishing on the North Sea’s environment. The Ministers agreed to draw up an ecosystem plan for fishing by not later than 2010. The Netherlands will remain closely involved in the follow-up regarding the existing fishery and shipping conventions. Water quality policy will have to be increasingly integrated into economic and spatial policy in the future. 2.1 European marine strategy Where the EU is concerned, the importance of the ecosystem approach is also on its agenda this year, namely in the European Marine Strategy (EMS). On 24 October 2005, the European Commission presented a proposal for a Framework Directive on Marine Strategy (FDMS). This directive must be seen in association with the announcement of the European Marine Strategy (EMS) which was presented at the same time. The Commission indicated that the FDMS would form the cornerstone of the new Green Book on Maritime Policy. The Green Book, which was published on 7 June 2006, aims to develop an integration of vision and strategy that will combine the various uses, values and related aspects of the European seas and coastal waters. The Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management has prime responsibility for this subject, in close co-operation with the Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment, the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Management and Fisheries, and the Ministry of home Affairs. The Ministries of Economic Affairs and Defence are also involved. The Netherlands is not convinced that the FDMS, in its current form, is a suitable instrument for implementing the EMS. The Netherlands has always expressed itself positively regarding the Commission’s intention to achieve a European Marine Strategy. In addition to existing regional sea conventions, a strategy has added value for Europe by ensuring that the exchange of knowledge and a clear, sustainable European policy on the marine environment are made possible. In view of the European field of influence, in which a large majority of member states support the realization of the directive, the Netherlands has decided to dedicate itself to correcting the framework directive, using the following as starting points, namely that the FDMS may not disturb or duplicate the operation of existing regional organisations; may not directly or indirectly result in new quality requirements over and above the obligations in existing European or international legal instruments; must connect well with the Water Framework Directive, European maritime policy (working out of the Green Book), and other European regulations. The above-mentioned presentation of the Green Book by the European Commission was also the beginning of broad consultation by stakeholders, which will last until 1 July 2007. The Commission has organised the consultation at European and international level, and has asked the member states to do the same at national level. In the Green Book, the Commission let it be known that various subjects such as transport, fisheries and offshore energy must be viewed jointly, so that an integrated vision can be developed of how the EU must deal with its surrounding seas and oceans.

35

The Commission intends to present a Statement at the end of 2007, containing proposals for EU activities and measures to the Council and the EP. A number of consultation rounds have been organised in the Netherlands, with a final meeting at the beginning of 2007. The Dutch government will determine its position regarding this Green Book based on the results of these consultation rounds and a regional ministers’ conference (ministers from 6 North-West European countries) in February 2007 in Rotterdam. This concerns a dossier on spatial effects. 2.2 Priority substances in water (Water Framework Directive) On 17 July 2006, the European Commission published its proposal for an EU directive on environmental quality requirements regarding water policy (in short “priority substances”), in which the environmental quality requirements are laid down as a commitment to results for certain priority substances. This proposal is an elaboration of Article 16 of the Water Framework Directive (WFD of December 2000). If no agreement is reached at Community level on 22 December 2006, the EU countries will have to determine the environmental quality standards themselves. The above-mentioned proposal aims to give substance to Article 16 of the WFD. The proposal also states that in specific cases, countries must indicate transition areas – zones within a water authority where the standard may be exceeded locally as a result of spillage. The proposal requires an audit of spillages of priority substances to be set up, as well as of eight selected polluting substances from both point sources and diffuse sources. Lastly, the proposal designates a number of substances as priority hazards (amongst others cadmium). The discussion on this subject has started under the Finnish chairmanship. Dutch efforts in the forthcoming period The Netherlands wants a clear link with the stipulations of the WFD: the proposal regarding priority substances should not increase the commitments of the WFD. However, the proposal lacks the possibility for exceptions that are contained in the WFD. During the negotiations, the Netherlands will strongly advocate realistic standards, which the Netherlands can realize and a clear link between this proposal and the WFD. The Netherlands is also a supporter of community measures (in accordance with Article 16 of the WFD) if they are effective and appear to be necessary to ensure an equal level of environmental protection and an even playing field for economic actors. The whole situation hinges on the size of trans-boundary environmental problems and the situation of the Netherlands as a downstream member state. This concerns a dossier on spatial effects. International Conventions The Netherlands is party to a variety of international, legally binding sea, shipping and fisheries conventions, which serve to protect the seas and oceans. 2.3 OSPAR Where the Netherlands is concerned, the OSPAR Convention (North Sea) in particular, offers the possibility to work out the ecosystem approach in more detail. Sustainable management has been defined in this Convention as the management of human activities in such a way that the marine ecosystem can continue to support the lawful use of the sea and can continue to provide the needs of today’s and future generations. In the OSPAR Convention (Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North East Atlantic), agreements have been laid down for outlining the condition of the marine environment. The OSPAR Commission has grouped the North Sea’s current environmental problems into four categories, from serious to less serious. The effects of fishing, pollution with organic compounds, and the excess of nutrients in the coastal regions received the highest score. In addition to what is carried down by rivers and deposited from the atmosphere, the sources of pollution from oil, heavy metals and hazardous substances from shipping and the extraction of oil and gas and exotic plants and animals introduced by man, are high on the list of threats to the ecosystem. The problems are concentrated in the coastal areas, where the influence of

36

river deposits, direct dumping, and atmospheric deposits is the greatest. On the Dutch Continental Shelf (outside 12 sea miles), the deposits of most substances are at target level, or occur at such low concentrations that current technology is barely able to measure them. In association with OSPAR, a measuring system has been developed that can determine whether an ecosystem is healthy and sustainable (ecological quality objectives). Experience gathered with this system can show the way towards an internationally agreed ecosystem approach. Guidelines for CO2 storage are being worked on within the framework of both OSPAR and the London Convention (see below). The Netherlands finds it important that the legal and technical aspects of CO2 storage are well regulated. Risks to the marine environment must be prevented in the event of CO2 escaping from a storage location. The Netherlands believes in the development of a sound system for risk assessment and management, of which monitoring is an essential part, during the forthcoming period. This subject will be developed from two angles in the forthcoming period, namely the legal angle (led by Norway), and the environment-technical angle (led by the Netherlands). During the last meeting (in June 2006), agreements were made regarding the capacity and budget required for preparing a Quality Status Report. The report is to be completed in 2010. The Netherlands has stressed the importance of this endeavour to OSPAR. The report must also serve for the ‘initial assessment’ which has to be set up in accordance with the Marine Environment Framework Directive. Lastly, an evaluation of the progress in achieving the objectives of the OSPAR radioactivity strategy, regarding concentrations in the marine environment, will be carried out during the forthcoming period. The next OSPAR meeting will be held in June 2007. The next Ministers’ Conference will be held in 2010 in Norway. The Netherlands will also pay critical attention to industrial activities at sea and convey a strong message on this subject during COP8 of the Basel Convention, which is to be held in Nairobi in November 2006 (see also 1.8 Basel Convention). 2.4 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea In association with UNCLOS (Convention on the Law of the Sea), the Netherlands (via the EU) asked at the annual ICP (Informal Consultative Process)that attention be paid to the necessary protection of marine biodiversity in areas outside national jurisdiction. A resolution regarding this subject, to which the Netherlands will continue to dedicate itself, will be discussed during the General Meeting of the United Nations at the end of 2006. 2.5 Marpol/IMO Within the context of the Marpol Convention, an international convention of the IMO (International Maritime Organisation) for the prevention of pollution by ships, special attention is now being paid to setting up regulations regarding the prevention of air pollution by ships, the clean and safe demolition of ships and the registration and protection of particularly vulnerable sea areas. On 1 January 2007, the Netherlands will ratify the IMO Convention on Air Pollution by Ships (‘MARPOL Annex. VI’). In unison with the IMO, the Netherlands will exert its efforts towards improving this convention with new emission requirements as soon as possible. This involves Nox and Sox emissions in particular. The Netherlands also advocates the introduction of a normative guideline for fine particle emissions (PM10). This normative guideline is not included in the Convention at present. A series of negotiations is underway regarding these requirements, which will be finalised in 2008. In association with the UN (IMO), the Netherlands will exert its efforts towards arriving at instruments for the reduction of greenhouse gasses by shipping, which are obligatory and are consistent with the market. At the beginning of this year, the North Sea Ministers agreed to unite within the IMO with the aim of further reducing the negative effects of shipping on the North Sea environment.

37

2.6 London Convention/Protocol 1996 The London Convention regulates the dumping of waste and other substances at sea. Dumping is only possible with a permit. Countries that are a party to the Convention are obliged to keep a record of the permits they issue for dumping at sea. The 1996 Protocol came into force in March 2006. The Bill for ratification by the Netherlands has been with the Dutch Council of State since September 2006. When it comes into operation, the Protocol will replace the London Convention in its entirety. In principle, the Protocol bans the dumping of all substances, with the exception of substances included in Appendix I of the Protocol. Appendices II and III expand on the criteria that must play a role in the granting of permits. Within the context of this Convention, there is now also discussion concerning the possibility of storing CO2 beneath the seafloor. Australia has submitted an amendment for placing CO2 on the list of substances contained in Appendix I. Both the legal and technical aspects of CO2 storage will be discussed in detail during this phase. The Netherlands is taking an active part in this discussion. Attention will also be paid to radioactive waste within the context of this Convention. The Netherlands supports the implementation of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s maritime action plan. 2.7 Demolition ships The majority of sea-going vessels are demolished in a way that is harmful to people and the environment and this is causing a great deal of concern internationally. The IMO’s committee for the protection of the marine environment (MEPC) is currently setting up an international convention for the responsible demolition of ships. The Netherlands is actively involved and supports the realization of a legally binding instrument aimed at making clean demolition obligatory. The environment committee (MEPC) co-operates closely with the secretariats of the Basel Convention, on account of the potential release of hazardous waste products, with the Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and the ILO (International Labour Organisation), the latter in connection with the safety of employees. The long-term plan is for the recycling of demolition ships to develop into a safe and environmentally responsible industry. 2.8 Protocol on water and health In the Pan-European context (UN/ECE), one of the important conventions concerns trans-boundary waterways and international lakes (Helsinki Convention 1992). The Protocol on Water and Health, which was also signed by the Dutch Minister for Transport, Public Works and Water Management in London, has been in existence since 1999 as part of this Convention. The aim of the Protocol at all suitable levels, national, trans-boundary as well as international, is to protect people’s health and welfare both individually and collectively within the context of sustainable development, by improving water management, including water ecosystems and by preventing, managing and reducing diseases associated with water. The Protocol came into force in 2005, once sufficient parties had joined. A number of EU states – including the Netherlands – waited for evidence of the East-European ECE members’ enthusiasm before ratifying it themselves. Now that the Protocol is actually in force, the Netherlands will proceed with ratification. Ratification will not entail additional commitments for the Netherlands, as the articles are already covered by European or national legislation. However, ratification will entail an obligation to support other Parties to the Protocol in achieving their objectives. The Netherlands is expected to become a Party to the Protocol during 2007. In the meantime, 19 countries have ratified the Protocol. The first Meeting of Parties to the Protocol will be held in Geneva in January 2007.

38

3. Security 3.1 Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs): European policy The European Commission is at this moment preparing evaluations of GMO regulations regarding the admission of GMO products. The regulations for labelling and traceability were evaluated in 2006. A policy debate on the market admission of GMOs was also conducted in 2005 and 2006 and was instrumental in changing the working methods of the Commission and the EFSA (European Food Safety Agency). The Commission is also to prepare a report to the Council and the European Parliament on the experiences gained in the EU member states regarding coexistence measures, including an evaluation and assessment of all the measures that can or should be taken. Based on the results of this report, the Commission will consider how this subject is to be dealt with. Dutch efforts in the forthcoming period The Netherlands is of the opinion that the existing system for market admission provides sufficient guarantees for people and the environment. Recent changes in the working methods of the Commission and the EFSA have also improved the transparency of decision-making. A relatively small change in the approach to risk analysis is required for the evaluations. However, the evaluation could go into procedural matters such as transparency, the publication of field test locations and the efficiency of the procedure (how to achieve agreement on marketing requests more quickly in future). Where coexistence is concerned, the Netherlands endorses the standpoint of the European Commission, that member states can institute their own measures to guarantee coexistence based on the guidelines for developing national coexistence. In this context, co-ordination and information exchange between member states regarding their national measures is important. The Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Management and Fisheries (NLV) is responsible for this section of the GMO dossier. 3.2 Global GMO policy: Bio-safety Protocol Global agreements on GMOs have been laid down in the Cartagena Bio-safety Protocol. The Protocol came into operation in September 2003. The Protocol regulates the trans-boundary transport of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). In accordance with the Protocol, transports of GMOs destined for introduction into the environment must be reported in advance and the receiving country must consent to the transport. The Protocol now has 134 Parties (as of July 2006) including the EU. However, a few large GMO-exporting countries such as the USA, Canada and Argentina have not yet ratified the Protocol.

The third meeting of the Parties was held in March 2006. After difficult but successful negotiations, an important resolution was made at the conference regarding the more detailed amplification of the documentation requirements for transports of GMOs intended for food, animal feed or for direct processing (the so-called bulk goods). The resolution corresponded with the EU position, as it left room for determining and applying (national) threshold values for the unintended and technically unavoidable presence of GMOs. Other resolutions concerned further activities regarding, amongst others, capacity formation, risk analysis and management and liability. The fourth meeting of the Parties is planned for the beginning of 2008. Dutch efforts in the forthcoming period In addition to the implementation of the Bio-safety Protocol and the related EU regulations, the Netherlands’ efforts will mainly be focused on three subjects in the forthcoming period. Firstly, the Netherlands will actively contribute to the implementation of the resolution on risk analysis by, amongst other things, providing expert input during the planned regional workshops. It is a well-known fact that that although risk analyses are a fundamental part of the Protocol, many countries have difficulty in carrying them out in practice. The Netherlands wishes to contribute towards solving this problem. The second point of interest is capacity formation and the further improvement of the Bio-safety Clearing-house. Lastly, directly and via the EU, the Netherlands will actively participate in the negotiations on an effective and workable system of liability for biodiversity damage under the Protocol.

39

3.3 Environmental security The subject of environmental security is a relatively new one, which deals with the possible conflicts and tensions that may arise between countries and communities or within them, over the use of natural resources. For example:

• the negative effects on people and nature of the accelerated escalation of climate changes, which (mainly) affect developing countries;

• conflicts over water due to the ‘competing development of water interests’ regarding the quantity, quality and timing of water usage;

• the problem of land degradation and desertification in Africa, large parts of Asia and Latin America;

• ‘eco-migration’ problems arising from impaired living environments due to incorrect agricultural methods/irrigation (cotton cultivation around the Aral Sea) or the construction of dams and inappropriate forms of mineral extraction.

The more detailed amplification of specific European policy on this subject is carried out in a more structured form within the so-called Environment and Security (ENVSEC) framework. This is a joint collaboration between UNEP, UNDP, the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OVSE) and NATO. Since 2003, several concrete projects have been running in a number of South-East European countries (including the former Yugoslavia), the Caucasus and Central Asia (EECCA, Eastern Europe, the Caucasus and Central Asia). The aim of these projects is to apply a practical approach to search for solutions to environmental and security problems in fragile areas. NATO joined the ENVSEC initiative recently and is contributing financially, as well as with knowledge and expertise in the context of its “Science for Peace Programme”. Dutch efforts in the forthcoming period Regarding this subject, the Netherlands is playing an active role in the UNEP, OVSE and UNDP process in the strong belief that the initiatives of UNEP, UNDP, OVSE and NATO will remain well co-ordinated. Together with Canada, Finland, Austria, Norway, Sweden and Italy, the Netherlands is of the opinion that more attention must be paid to the EECCA countries, especial where fragility analyses, early warning systems and monitoring of risk areas, policy development and implementation and the institutional development of capacity formation are concerned. Under the Spanish Chairmanship of the OVSE in 2007, the subject of ‘environmental security’ will receive a great deal of attention. By thinking constructively about the realization of this subject at an early stage, the Netherlands can influence the choice of a number of activities and where possible, ensure that they are in line with national priorities. Incidentally, this is a dossier that has a spatial effect on the Netherlands (spatial intervention may be necessary to guarantee environmental security). 3.4 Directive on the assessment and management of flood risks (“High Water Directive”) The aim of the high water directive is to reduce and manage the effects of floods on people, the environment and the economy. The directive prescribes the management instruments for tackling the problem of flooding (auditing and estimating the gravity of the problem, drawing up flood maps and flood risk management plans) and makes trans-boundary co-ordination obligatory. The directive does not stipulate the degree of protection that must be provided against flooding or the measures or speed with which the high water problem must be tackled. This remains the responsibility of the member states. However, the proposal does stipulate that suitable objectives for managing flood risks must be determined per flood area. In addition to these instruments, a number of principles have been determined: the so-called ‘not passing the buck’ approach at flood area level and an integrated and chain approach. The proposal for the directive contains three concrete commitments (in the form of products) for the member states:

• Preliminary flood risk assessment: member states are to determine which areas are subject to significant risk. Where there is no significant flood risk, no further action needs to be undertaken. This must be completed by 2012.

40

• Flood risk maps: member states are to develop flood risk and damage maps that will serve as input for the flood risk management plans. They must be completed by December 2013.

• Flood risk management plans: member states are to develop and implement plans aimed at reducing the risks of flooding, for which the solidarity principle of ‘not passing the buck’ applies. These must be completed by December 2015.

During the Environment Council in June 2006, all the member states were able to agree to the proposal, whereupon a political accord was reached on this directive. It is expected that the Council will examine the second reading by the EP during the first half of 2007. Dutch efforts in the forthcoming period Together with France, the Netherlands took the initiative and marked flood protection as a priority during its chairmanship of the EU in 2004. Its importance to the Netherlands lies in determining a number of basic principles and frames of reference for trans-boundary co-operation in European legislation. This is desirable in view of the geographic fact that the entire territory of the Netherlands lies within four international river basins (the Rhine, Maas, Scheldt and Eems) and that co-operation with the neighbouring countries on the subject of water is essential. There has already been good co-operation with the international river commissions but a European approach offers an additional instrument for strengthening co-operation on flood protection with the countries adjacent to us. The most important aspects for the Netherlands: 1. to determine a number of basic principles: (i) solidarity, “not passing the buck”, (ii) to look

at the entire policy cycle with the emphasis on prevention, (iii) an integrated approach with regard to functions and sectors (security, space, economic functions, nature), (iv) risk approach.

2. to promote co-operation according to the scale of river basins: for the problem analysis, maps and management plans, based on good information exchange. The Netherlands’ prime concern is the trans-boundary river basins. In view of the fact that this is the case for all the large rivers in the Netherlands, we can approve a directive that is valid for all river basins (including the national ones).

3. subsidiarity: The Netherlands believes that the strict application of the subsidiarity principle is very important to the problem of flooding. Dealing with the problems of flooding is above all (but not exclusively) a regional concern (member countries and river commissions). At EU level, only a number of principles and frames of reference for co-operation need to be determined. The political accord reached also follows this commitment. The Netherlands is against determining security standards at European level, as the regional differences are too great.

4. the relationship with the Water Framework Directive. The Netherlands advocates synergy with the Water Framework Directive (which primarily concerns water quality), but not integration with it due to practical and administrative considerations (complex directive; relationship with spatial considerations and crisis management; not the same competent authorities). At the moment, the above-mentioned points are securely anchored in the political accord. The Netherlands will dedicate itself to ensuring that this remains the case during deliberations with the EP.

This concerns a dossier on spatial effects. 3.5 Nuclear security In the light of the entry of new member states into the EU and the Commission’s and a number of other EU member countries’ renewed interest in nuclear energy, there is a need for further joint regulations regarding nuclear security, management of radioactive waste and irradiated fissionable material and financing the dismantling of nuclear power-stations. The European Commission proposed two directives regarding respectively the security of nuclear installations and the management of nuclear fuel and radioactive waste. This package of guidelines included a time plan within which the member states had to make the final storage of their radioactive waste operational. Although a minority within the Council ultimately blocked acceptance of the guideline package, the urgency became clear. Instead of

41

the guideline package, Council conclusions were accepted in which the parties are encouraged to amplify these subjects further via extensive consultations. The consultation process must ultimately result in consensus within the EU regarding the way in which this material should be treated and which instrument is the most suitable. During the Dutch chairmanship an action plan was set up in co-operation with the Council’s secretariat, in which the possibilities for achieving progress are stated in this dossier. Work groups have been set up with the task of finding common standpoints and formulating concrete instructions. The legal character of the instructions that the regulations will receive will also be the subject of negotiation: directive or recommendation. The proceedings are running to schedule and it is expected that the final report containing concrete recommendations will be completed at the end of 2006 or the beginning of 2007. Dutch efforts in the forthcoming period The Dutch standpoint with respect to the legal character of the instructions will depend on the contents of the instructions. In principle, the Netherlands advocates common security standards for nuclear installations. Common security standards must have added value and correlate with the IAEA standards (International Atomic Energy Agency) system of Safety Standards. Embodying the IAEA standards in obligatory regulations via a directive reinforces the ability to make these standards legally compulsory. If the EU cannot progress beyond a system of minimum requirements, a de facto attenuation compared to the IAEA Standards (recommendations) must be guarded against. The Netherlands advocates the co-ordination at European level of a system for the setting up and management of funds for dismantling nuclear installations. It must be certain that there is sufficient money for dismantling and that the money is well managed. The starting point is that entrepreneurs supply the money for the fund (the polluter must pay). The Netherlands supports the proposals of the European Commission in the sense that plans must be devised for the problem of highly radioactive and long-term radioactive waste. The starting point must be to reduce the quantity and hazardous aspects of radioactive waste. Possibilities must be sought for finding solutions with other countries. In the case of underground storage, the waste must be recoverable. For countries such as the Netherlands, with a small quantity of radioactive waste, the construction of underground storage cannot be justified at this time. This concerns a dossier on spatial effects. 3.6 External security External security policy is well developed in the Netherlands. A highly developed industry combined with a high population density, have resulted in a specific area planning policy regarding external security. Where the Netherlands has developed its own specific security policy, its preservation forms an important element in Dutch efforts. In addition to the external security aspects of industrial accidents and transport, terrorism, ‘deliberate disturbance’ and fireworks are subjects under discussion internationally. Where industrial accidents and transport are currently in the expert or the implementation phase of the international policy cycle (work in progress), new developments can be reported within the EU with regard to fireworks and ‘deliberate disturbance’/terrorism. Directive on Pyrotechnic Products During the second half of 2005, a draft directive was presented for the marketing of pyrotechnic articles (including fireworks). The aim of the directive is to realize a free European market for trading in pyrotechnic articles (fireworks in particular, but also distress signals, airbags, etc.), to draw up fundamental safety regulations for them, based on which a CE inspection would be obligatory. The draft directive also provides the possibility for member states to declare national restrictions or bans on consumer fireworks being made available to the public at large for the sake of public order or safety. The directive does not regulate the storage of fireworks, the safe distances to be observed for storage or the method and classification of transport to be used for fireworks. Regulating storage is left to the member states; the existing UN/ADR rules for the transportation of dangerous substances apply to transport and classification. The directive also does not

42

regulate the usage of professional or public event fireworks; the directive’s safety requirements naturally also apply to this type of firework. The Finnish chairmanship of the EU aims to reach an agreement with the first reading. Decision-making is planned during the Competitiveness Council in December 2006. Dutch efforts will be directed towards preserving the ability to take national measures aimed at consumer safety regarding the use of fireworks, a blacklist for banned dangerous fireworks and a classification by category in which hazard levels are linked to effects. Lastly, attention will be paid to the enforceability of the directive. Green Book European Programme for Critical Infrastructure Protection The additional emphasis given internationally to the incidence of deliberate disturbance due to terrorism has, amongst others, resulted in a European Commission’s Green Book regarding a European programme for the protection of critical infrastructure. The Green Book is a step along the way to realizing a European Programme for Critical Infrastructure Protection (EPCIP). As far as the Netherlands is concerned, the EPCIP must concentrate on critical infrastructure with trans-boundary effects. The protection of infrastructure should also be approached from a broader perspective than purely as a measure against terrorism. Causal events such as organisational or technical failure, special weather conditions, natural disasters and criminal actions also present a real danger, in short, a so-called ‘all-hazards approach’ is needed. The role of the European Commission should, above all, be that of facilitator. ‘Work-in-progress’ The SCETDG (Sub-Committee of Experts on the Transport of Dangerous Goods), a sub-committee under the ECOSOC of the UN, determines the recommendations for the safe transportation of dangerous goods, including environmentally hazardous substances. This pertains particularly to the classification, labelling and transport requirements of these substances. These recommendations will be adopted in the various transport conventions. The Netherlands’ efforts are aimed at harmonising the classification and labelling of environmentally hazardous substances using the Globally Harmonised System (GHS). In order to improve the enforcement of the import and export of fireworks, a list for the standard classification of fireworks (the so-called “default table”) was established in December 2004 in association with the UN. This was initiated by the Netherlands in response to the Enschede firework disaster in 2000, because the rules for the classification of fireworks are not properly applied internationally. This is a definite improvement, as the new situation also allows the use of the standard classification in the list instead of expensive and extensive testing. The Netherlands is committed to the adoption of the standard classification for fireworks in the European regulations for the transport of dangerous substances from 1 January 2007. The list will be immediately applied to the enforcement and designation of berths for sea-going vessels in Dutch harbours. In the RID (Pan-European Railway Regulation Organisation) the Netherlands is collaborating on an internationally shared perception of the techniques involved in making calculations (such as using statistics and effect distances in order to arrive at a risk indication) for external security purposes, so that we have the same information for evaluating risk-reducing measures. The Netherlands is also devoting its efforts to gaining international support within the RID for reducing the risk of a BLEVE (Boiling Liquid Expanding Vapour Explosion) during the transportation of LPG via tanker trucks and railway wagons. Following the results of the chain studies, the Netherlands has proposed applying a heat-resistant coating to tanker trucks and railway wagons for the transportation of LPG. This is a cost-effective measure for making transport safer. The purpose of the coating is to delay the risk of the tank exploding during a fire, so that the fire brigade has sufficient time to control the fire and prevent an explosion. On the subject of external security, the Netherlands is co-operating with OESO, the WHO, the IPCS (International Programme on Chemical Safety) and, via the ECE Convention on Trans-boundary Effects of Industrial Accidents, the ‘Helsinki Convention’ (which was approved by the Dutch Parliament in September 2006). The Netherlands’ involvement is important due to its great knowledge and experience of the subject. The Netherlands was involved in the revision of the dangerous substances list of the Helsinki Convention to the Seveso-II Directive. In connection with the Helsinki Convention,

43

the Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment (VROM) also co-operated actively on the realization of the UNECE recommendations for the safety of pipelines by, amongst other things, organising a workshop in the Hague on the safety of natural gas pipelines (March 2006). The proposal for the revision of the substances list for the Convention and the recommendations for the safety of pipelines are expected to be adopted by the Conference of Parties in November 2006. The OESO Chemicals Accidents Programme is important for anticipating, identifying, preventing, assessing and managing the risks attached to dangerous substances. In the European context, two projects are being run that are aimed at realizing the Seveso-II Directive: the ARAMIS project (Accidental Risk Assessment Methodology for IndustrieS in the framework of the SEVESO II Directive), which focuses on the co-ordination of the risk analysis methodologies and the EWGLUP project (European Working Group on Land Use Planning), which is focused on the implementation of Article 12 of the Seveso-II Directive at the end of 2006. Priority is given to strengthening the ties with our direct neighbours (the United Kingdom, Germany, France and Belgium) with whom work agendas will be set up and carried out for sharing experiences and to search for a similar commitment in international forums. There is also a growing demand from the ‘new’ countries of the European Union for the transfer of Dutch knowledge regarding external security. External security is a subject that has spatial effects.

44

4. Economic development 4.1 Commission for Sustainable Development (CSD) The UN Commission for Sustainable Development (CSD) is responsible for the implementation of the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation (JPoI). It concerns international consensus for the actions needed to achieve sustainable development. With the bill on Sustainable International Effectiveness,18 the Netherlands gives content to actions regarding water, energy, health, agriculture, biodiversity, international environment management and resources. Part of the implementation will be carried out via the partnerships. Since CSD11 (2003), due to the efforts of the Netherlands and a large number of other delegations, it has been agreed that thematically clustered subjects will be the focal point of the two-yearly cycles. The first year is intended for the evaluation of the results achieved so far (‘review’), as well as the identification of bottlenecks experienced with the implementation of the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation and with achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). The second year is to be used for drawing up policy recommendations (‘policy’). Cross-sectional subjects will also be dealt with: combating poverty, sustainable consumption and production, the protection and preservation of natural resources, globalisation, health, the small island states, Africa, financial resources, gender, development and the institutional framework. The central subjects for CSD14 (May 2006) and CSD15 (May 2007) were and will be energy, climate change, the atmosphere and industrial development. A great deal of work still has to be done to give more poor people access to energy. As indicated in the JPoI, the same holds true for making energy production and consumption sustainable and thereby contributing towards solving air pollution and climate change problems. Dutch efforts in the forthcoming period The Netherlands’ efforts will be concentrated on identifying bilateral and multilateral actors (such as UN organisations, International Financial Institutions, countries, etc.) for the actions contained in the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation on the subjects of energy, climate change, atmosphere and industrial development and on developing adequate monitoring mechanisms. During CSD14 (May 2006) the Netherlands emphasised the following elements:

- The importance of an integrated approach to the energy question with a balance between secure supply, access, environment and market.

- The necessity to fill in the $16 trillion investment challenge in energy as cleanly as possible to prevent negative effects on air pollution and climate. Innovative financing is required to realize investment in clean energy.

- The concept that measures for improving energy efficiency have several direct positive effects with regard to cost reduction, climate and secure supply.

- The Netherlands has called attention to the need for access to modern energy services in order to realize the Millennium Development Goals. Access to energy is necessary for the development of the developing countries. It is important that this is tackled via an integrated approach. Renewable energy can play a role in situations where it is socially and economically feasible. The ‘Energy for All’ initiative in connection with the investment framework for clean energy set up by the World Bank was frequently included in the interventions.

- The Netherlands has emphasised the importance of the simultaneous development of quality policy (objectives) and source policy (measures). The Netherlands has also pointed out the possibilities for synergy in air pollution and climate policy and has also organised a side-event regarding the GAINS model (Greenhouse Gas and Air Pollution Interactions and Synergies) in this connection.

The Netherlands is satisfied with the result of CSD14. The session has provided an excellent analysis of the obstacles and barriers, which will form a good basis for policy dialogue during CSD15 (May 2007). The result has been summarised by the chairman of CSD14 and for the

18 Action Programme Sustainable Effectiveness, Lower House, 2002–2003, VROM 30480, Progress Report 2003, BUZA 40422

45

greater part, the points that are important to the Netherlands and the EU have been adequately reported: • The importance of an integrated approach to energy, industrial development, air pollution

and climate and an integral energy policy; • The necessity for innovative methods of financing in order to achieve sustainable energy

management; • The improvement of access to modern energy services for the poor and women in

particular. Now that the ‘review’ year can be said to have been successful, it is now a case of directing all efforts towards achieving a meaningful outcome to CSD-15, where agreements must be made to accelerate the implementation of the Johannesburg objectives. In the context of the EU, the Austrian chairmanship held an informal workshop on this subject in June 2006. The Netherlands will continue with the Follow-up Group for Energy for Development which focuses on an integrated approach to the environment, combating poverty and economic development. During the conference “Make Markets Work for Climate”, which was held in October 2006 in Amsterdam, the Netherlands fleshed out the possibilities for innovative financing mechanisms. This concerns a dossier with spatial effects (for instance where reserving areas for bio-energy and wind energy are concerned). 4.2 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) The main objective of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) is healthy international economic development, with sustainable development as its general starting point. Where the environment is concerned, the OECD focuses primarily on knowledge development, policy analyses and policy development with the member states and peer reviews, but also supports other forums by making studies, reviews, analyses and models available. The OECD therefore fulfils an important function as a think tank. The OECD environment directorate, the official representatives in the Environment Policy Committee (EPOC) and the resulting Working Parties, focus primarily on the relationship between the environment and the economies of the 30 associated industrial countries, but increasingly also on the effects in other countries. In many cases, industrialised countries have similar environmental problems. The exchange of knowledge, experiences and ‘best practices’ avoids double work. The OECD is also a forum for exploring combined strategies, for instance on climate. In addition to studies and analyses, the OECD also tries to bring about agreements or guidelines in various (parts of) areas. In addition to its activities concerned with the environment, the OECD performs spatial-economic analyses called Territorial Reviews. The purpose of a Territorial Review is to evaluate policy with regard to the competitiveness of an area, to utilise the knowledge gathered in other metropolitan regions (benchmarking) and to make recommendations regarding competitive power and governance. In order to support the various measures taken to strengthen the international competitive position of Randstad Holland (western metropolitan agglomeration), the Ministries of Economic Affairs, VROM (Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment) and BZK (Home Affairs) asked the OECD to carry out a Territorial Review of the Randstad in July 2005. The ministries of LNV (Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality) and V&W (Transport, Public Works and Water Management) are also involved. The Review is to be presented to the OECD countries at the end of November 2006 and will be determined in the Territorial Development Policy Committee (TDPC). The departments and the Randstad Region intend to organise a meeting in March 2007 to present the conclusions and mobilise energy. In the context of important UN meetings such as the World Summit for Sustainable Development or the Millennium Review Summit, the OECD can make a contribution with the collaboration between the environment committee EPOC and the Development Assistance Committee (DAC). Accordingly, a joint meeting was held with the environment and development ministers in April 2006 to reach an improved synergy between the policy areas. This resulted in a Ministerial declaration in which as much integration as possible is to be

46

achieved between environmental considerations and the work of development co-operation. A further result is that more information must be shared with developing countries and that they must be assisted in their efforts to achieve better integration of the environment in their economic and development priorities. The worldwide war on poverty and the depredation of the environment have to be approached collectively. The declaration is therefore an important step in helping the Development Co-operation (OS) countries to render the investments that are made in these countries more ‘climate-proof’ (including climate adaptation). Dutch efforts in the forthcoming period The Netherlands’ efforts will be focused on exploring policy options that will integrate environmental policy even more with other sector-orientated policy fields, the advantages of good environmental policy and the respective problems and costs that can be prevented in future, amongst others by scrutinising the ‘costs of inaction’. But also, which (market-orientated or other) instruments work best in a particular context? The OECD is currently working on the further implementation of the environment strategy agreed in 2001 and is gathering data to actualise a publication on the condition of the environment (Environmental Outlook) to enable it to extract the most important points of interest for additional work. The Netherlands also finds it important to pay attention to the positive effects of environmental policy in other policy areas, such as health, development co-operation by highlighting the ‘costs of inaction’ or ‘benefits of action’. The Environmental Outlook is to be presented in 2007. The environmental policy committee has three Working Parties and many work groups. There are also combined work groups for Trade & Environment, Agriculture & Environment, and Taxation & Environment in which the Netherlands participates. On the subject of agriculture and environment, the Netherlands and the EU advocate the development of regional indicators. 4.3 Economic Commission for Europe (ECE) The Economic Commission for Europe (UN/ECE) has had an active environment programme for some time. It has helped countries in central Europe to adapt environmental legislation to the requirements of the European Union. It is now focusing on supporting the Union’s ‘new’, more eastern neighbours by means of, for instance, periodic country review (“environmental performance reviews”) of the countries in the former Soviet Union and the Balkans. Five environment conventions have been realized under the auspices of the UN/ECE, for trans-boundary air pollution, water pollution, an environmental effects report, the trans-boundary effects of industrial accidents and access to environmental information (Aarhus Convention), respectively. These conventions are already in operation and the number of parties varies from 35 to 50 member states. These conventions fulfil a role by protecting the environment at the outermost borders of the Union and by avoiding border conflicts over environmental matters in those countries. In a number of cases, the contents of the conventions even surpass the Union regulations. Environmental pollution knows no boundaries and it is in the Union’s interests to avoid an abrupt decline in living conditions (environment, health) at its outermost borders. Good relationships, stability and co-operation with the ‘new neighbours’ has been formalised in the Union’s “European Neighbourhood Policy”, of which management of the environment is a part. The Netherlands, in this case the Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment (VROM), is contributing to this to the best of its ability. Incidentally, the neighbourhood policy also applies to the countries on the southern borders of the Union, in the Mediterranean area. In addition to other international organisations (OECD, UNEP, WHO, the East European Bank, the World Bank, EIB, the Council of Europe, etc.) the UN/ECE is the driving force behind the “Environment for Europe” programme, and is active in the areas of environment management and environmental infrastructure (including drinking water, waste/water cleansing, energy provision). At this moment in time, the programme is mainly aimed at the countries in the area of the former Soviet Union and the Balkans. The next Ministers’ Conference (Belgrade, 2007) will pay more attention than previously to instruments other than those of finance and legislation for achieving behavioural change, namely education for

47

sustainable development, enforcement and adherence enhancing mechanisms and the introduction of sustainable consumption patterns. In general, the programme also implements the resolutions of the World Summit on Sustainable Development (Johannesburg 2002) but with its focus on the UN/ECE region of Europe and North America. Now that the expansion of the European Union has been delayed and limited in its ambitions by the referendums in the Netherlands and France and the “Neighbourhood Policy” is proving difficult to crank up, the “Environment for Europe” will fulfil a key role in the coming years. Sustainable housing and land management is the second UN/ECE programme with direct environmental effects. Urbanisation, which is increasing worldwide, is resulting in huge environmental pressures. By restructuring older high-rise buildings in particular, a considerable contribution can be made towards limiting energy consumption and consequently, the amount of CO2 emissions. Dutch efforts in the forthcoming period The Netherlands wishes to contribute to the success of the Ministers’ Conference in Belgrade in 2007. For this reason, the Netherlands supports a number of UN/ECE programmes in particular, namely: 1. “environmental performance reviews” of East-European countries that focus on convergence and environmental regulations and policy in greater Europe; 2. “education for sustainable development” which focuses on the introduction of environmental policy elements and sustainable development in education; 3. the Belgrade Report, with a summary and assessment of the environmental situation in Europe. The Netherlands also endorses good co-ordination between the UN/ECE’s work and that of the European Union in relation to Neighbourhood Policy. This means that solid agreements must be made in Belgrade regarding the assignment of tasks in the environment co-operation with East and South-East European countries after 2007. It is conceivable that that the European Union will concentrate on the Balkan countries during the next few years and thereafter on the bordering areas (Russia, Ukraine, Moldavia). The Netherlands also supports the Preparation Committee Project, in which Western countries and the international banks are collaborating to start environment (infrastructure) investment in East-European countries, so far with reasonable success. The same is true of the OECD Task Group for the Environment Action programme for Central and Eastern Europe, with special attention to financial-economic instruments. With the support of the UN/ECE committee for sustainable housing and land management, the Netherlands is providing assistance with setting up housing policy and urban renewal. 4.4 Environment and trade The discussion regarding international trade and the World Trade Organisation (WTO) was characterised by the Doha development round in particular. The environment also figured on the Doha agenda, the central themes being the relationship between WTO regulations on the one hand and specific trading conditions in multilateral environment conventions on the other, and the reduction or removal of tariff and non-tariff trading barriers against environmental goods and services. As we know, the Doha negotiations came to a full stop in the summer of 2006, including the discussion under the environment section of Doha. A date for the possible re-starting of the Doha round is unknown at present. Dutch efforts in the forthcoming period The relationship between environment and trade remains important despite the (temporary) hiatus in the Doha round. The general starting point that trade contributes to development and prosperity still holds, however endeavours to find a balance between economic, environmental and social aspects must continue. Trade and environmental regulations should reinforce each other and form two equally valuable (convention) systems. The Netherlands remains dedicated to guaranteeing the two values (mutual strengthening and equality), in particular where the implementation and further development of a large number of environmental conventions with a (implicit and explicit) trade component is concerned.

48

Important examples of such conventions are the Montreal Protocol, which regulates the production, consumption and trade in ozone-degrading substances, the Bio-safety Protocol, which regulates the trans-boundary transfer of GMO’s and the Rotterdam Convention, which regulates the import and export of certain chemicals. In the context of the relationship between the environment and trade, the subject of environmentally-friendly technologies will require more attention in the forthcoming period – amongst others, this concerns the application and transfer of these technologies and the accompanying opportunities for (international) environmental policy. 4.5 Lisbon Strategy: Clean, Clever and Strong in Europe During discussions on the Lisbon Strategy in previous years, the Netherlands has continued to ask for attention to be paid to the importance of stimulating clever and clean innovations that contribute positively to the European economy, jobs and the environment (Clean, Clever, Competitive). As a follow-up to the Dutch Chairmanship of the EU, the Ministries of VROM (Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment) and EZ (Economic Affairs) have launched a dialogue regarding the stimulation of such innovations with overarching organisations such as UNICE, UEAPME (European Small and Medium Enterprise), EEB (European Environmental Bureau), the World Business Council for Sustainable Development and Eurochambres (European Chamber of Commerce). The European Commission (DG Environment and DG Industry) were involved, as were the British and Austrian Chairmanships (second half of 2005 and first half of 2006 respectively). The result of this dialogue was the recommendation ‘A will to compete: a Competitive, Clean and Clever Europe’, which appeared at the beginning of 2006. The recommendation was then offered to the European Commissioners Dimas (Environment) and Verheugen (Industry Policy). During the last Spring Council (March 2006), the Netherlands successfully appealed for the inclusion of eco-efficient innovations as an important area of innovation, in addition to ICT, that the EU should set its sights on. Bearing in mind the challenges presented by energy and climate change, to coin a phrase, three birds could be killed with one stone with clever and clean innovations:

• less dependence on oil and gas imports from abroad (and therefore greater certainty of energy supply)

• a better competitive position (more efficient energy consumption reduces production costs and new technologies offer export potential)

• tackling persistent environmental problems of climate change and air quality. During the coming year efforts will be directed at keeping the discussion on the Lisbon Strategy and European innovation policy (one of the top priorities of the Finnish Chairmanship) as much in line as possible with the discussion about European energy policy and the medium and long-range climate strategy to be published at the beginning of 2007. In its policy choices, the EU should apply itself as much as possible to the measures that bring the objectives of the three areas of innovation, energy and climate closer. In addition to more research and development, the EU must also promote an attractive market perspective for clever and clean innovations. In this context, the Netherlands has appealed in the past for the use of instruments such as a green acquisition policy, increased availability of risk capital, the abolition of unsustainable subsidies, fiscal incentives and ambitious long-term objectives. Dutch efforts in the forthcoming period

• To accelerate the stimulation of clever and clean innovation on a European level by linking the discussions on energy and climate innovation (Lisbon);

• To improve the market perspective for eco-efficient innovations at European level by applying concrete measures such as green government tendering, fiscal incentives, the availability of risk capital, the exchange of experience and sharing of information on fiscal matters (including a green taxation system).

• The Netherlands will continue with the implementation of various actions in ETAP, which has already been started. There is an intense exchange of experience with

49

financial instruments between France, Spain and Austria at the moment, where the Dutch regulation on Green Investment is being viewed with great interest.

This concerns a dossier that has many correlations with spatial policy: for instance due to the fact that the Rotterdam Agenda (policy focused on social, economic and territorial cohesion) is important to the Lisbon Strategy. 4.6 Thematic Strategy for waste prevention and recycling and the revision of the Waste Framework Directive At the end of December 2005, the Commission presented the Thematic Strategy for Waste Prevention and a proposal for the (revision of the) Waste Framework Directive. An important starting point of the Thematic Strategy for Waste and the Waste Framework Directive is the explicit statement of the environmental objective on waste policy. This was achieved by the introduction of life-cycle thinking and by making an explicit link with the Thematic Strategy on Natural Resources. Life-cycle thinking leads to the idea that waste prevention and recycling are not goals in themselves but the means by which environmental pressure can be reduced by the use of resources. Other starting points and actions are the renewed emphasis on waste prevention, amongst others by linking them to product policy, environmental permits and clean technology and products; to attract attention to the possibilities of the use of economic instruments such as dumping tax; the simplification and modernisation of European waste regulations, bearing feasibility in mind; promoting an even European playing field for waste management by further harmonisation of environmental requirements regarding waste processing and secondary materials. The latter would also remove obstacles to innovation. These points are linked to the actual discussions concerning Dutch waste policy. The proposal was first discussed in March 2006 during the Austrian Chairmanship. The German Chairmanship hopes to reach a political accord during its term (first half of 2007). Dutch efforts in the forthcoming period The Netherlands advocates the proposed life-cycle approach and the reduction of pressure on the environment by the use of natural resources. Sustainable waste management is dependent on the sustainable use of natural resources. The Thematic Waste Strategy regards waste prevention and recycling as a means to reduce pressure on the environment by the use of resources. The Netherlands agrees with this. The Netherlands endorses the idea that marketing instruments can be effective in achieving the prevention and sustainable management of natural resources and waste. The Netherlands endorses the importance of European standards for waste processing and secondary materials to achieve environmental goals and simultaneously help the internal market to function well, but misses a clear statement of priorities regarding the huge task of developing European standards for secondary materials and waste processing techniques. The Waste Framework Directive is a step in the direction of simplifying and modernising European regulations but misses some important opportunities. Some examples of items on which the Netherlands would like further clarification are the definition of waste and the difference between removal and useful application, as well as modernisation of the regulations for general rules, registration and inspections. The Netherlands is of the opinion that activities in connection with water management must not be hindered by the Waste Framework Directive in so far as activities whereby safe sediment is removed are concerned. It is not necessary to apply the Waste Framework Directive in this case, as all cases of removal of this sediment are embodied in the environmental requirements set out in the Water Framework Directive. 4.7 Financing of international environmental policy and preserving the supply of money Funds are needed for the implementation of international environment and nature policy objectives (as laid down, amongst others, in environment conventions and the Johannesburg agenda). This applies particularly to the implementation of global environment conventions and for assistance with their implementation in developing countries. The global environment fund (Global Environment Facility – GEF) has a central role in this. The GEF budget has been under a great deal of pressure in recent years due to, amongst others, the United States’

50

limited willingness to contribute to it. Greater effectiveness in the way the money is spent was an important condition. With the “Performance-based allocation” agreed last year, this condition has largely been met. As a result of this, amongst others, the discussion regarding the replenishment of the fund’s resources was able to progress quickly last year and an accord was reached (30 August 2006) regarding the fourth resource replenishment of the GEF. For a period of 3–4 years, an amount of more than 3 billion dollars will be available to support the implementation of environment conventions in the developing countries, for instance, 1 billion is destined for climate-related programmes. The Directorate General for International Co-operation (GIS) of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is able to spend 0.1% of the GDP on international nature and environment policy (part of the 0.8% of the GDP for development co-operation). In addition to financing the implementation of international environment and nature policy, international funds must also be viewed from an environment angle: the preservation of international money supplies. Seen in this light, the International Financial Institutions (including the World Bank), private investment, including export credits and European development funds, are important. The Netherlands is jointly responsible for the funds from international financial institutions (e.g., the World Bank, EBRD, EIB) but not, or to a lesser extent, for private investments. The World Bank group has developed guidelines focused on the environment amongst other things, which serve as an example for private banks (Equator Principles). In this regard, the OECD guidelines for multinational companies are important. An interesting development is the investment framework for clean energy and development that the World Bank is developing at the request of the G8 (see Part I, Chapter 3.1 ‘energy in relation to climate’). Dutch efforts in the forthcoming period The Netherlands is dedicated to generating sufficient resources internationally to finance environmental objectives and promote the use of international money supplies for the support of global environmental objectives. From an environment point of view, the preservation of the supply of money is the most important reason for monitoring the international supply of money and to influence it as much as possible. In connection with the IBO on climate, the Netherlands is also considering the possibilities of applying Dutch financial instruments directed at the private sector to a greater extent on climate-friendly investments. The Future Agenda for the Environment announced that research will be carried out into the existing guidelines and enforcement mechanisms of international public and private banks. 4.8 Sustainable production and consumption In order to influence unsustainable production and consumption patterns, steps must be taken to internalise environmental costs and call a halt to unsustainable practices so that adverse effects are not shifted from the here and now to elsewhere and later. This was also laid down in the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation. The subject of sustainable consumption and production features at European level within UNEP and the CSD, as well as in the OECD. At the European level, the European Commission has been asked to produce an EU action plan for sustainable production and consumption in connection with the revision of the EU SDS. This action plan is expected in 2007 and will focus on improving the environmental and social achievements of products and processes, sustainable government purchasing and investment in clean technology. Amongst others, UNEP is focusing on international awareness, the exchange of information and support for policy directed towards sustainable production and consumption. In this context, UNEP supports the so-called Marrakesh process, in which the international community has committed itself to a ten-year approach to sustainable consumption and production. This process entails the exchange of information between the developed and developing countries regarding existing and new policies and measures. An international meeting of experts will be held in Stockholm in June 2007 to discuss the progress of the work groups under the Marrakesh process (with regard to products, tourism, life styles, co-operation with Africa, buildings, education and government purchasing). In connection with

51

the CSD cycle on energy, industrial development, air pollution and climate, sustainable production and consumption are cutting-edge subjects. Dutch efforts in the forthcoming period Dutch efforts in the EU and UNEP forums will be primarily directed towards the exchange of knowledge for the purpose of policy development in the Netherlands and elsewhere. The Netherlands finds it important that producers and consumers themselves assume responsibility for sustainable development. Due to the apparently limited effectiveness of consumer policy, policy will now be particularly orientated towards the producers. The Netherlands’ efforts will mainly be directed towards sustainable government purchasing. In addition, it is important that the government focuses on promoting the transparency of production chains and on supporting stakeholder consultancy regarding operational sustainability objectives.

52

5. Space The Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment (VROM) is aware of the increasing impact of EU policy on the spatial organisation of the Netherlands and proactively wishes to influence this impact as much as possible. Moreover, the starting point of the international policy agenda is the need to take international spatial processes into account when determining and implementing national spatial policy. In this way, the European spatial structures, which are important for the sustainable development of the Netherlands’ competitiveness, will be strengthened. These starting points have been worked out in detail in the Space Bill in the form of the following objectives for spatial policy from an international perspective:

• A more active contribution in Brussels decision making with regard to both policy and regulations (EU directives). The contribution must be aimed at utilising opportunities and preventing adverse effects on the spatial development of the Netherlands;

• To strengthen European co-operation based on the European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP) and the co-operation programmes of the Structure Funds;

• To promote the connection with European spatial structures, for example the Trans-European Networks (TENs) and the European Ecological Main Structure;

• To use the strategic position of the Netherlands in the urban network of North-West Europe and to develop trans-boundary networks;

• To promote economic and ecological maritime co-operation with regard to the North Sea and the Waddenzee.

5.1 EU policy with spatial impact In order to gain a better understanding of the spatial impact of EU policy and its resulting regulations (and also to carry out the Meindertsma motion and others – see 2.1), the Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment (VROM) is undertaking the following actions:

- The setting up, further development and updating of an overview of the European dossiers that have spatial impact;

- Interdepartmental co-operation for the early signalling and diarising of EU policy initiatives with potential spatial relevance; strengthening the involvement of the RPC and the RRODM (Council for Spatial Development, Sustainability and the Environment) herein;

- The setting up of structural contacts for the exchange of information, knowledge and experience regarding the entire work field (local authorities and other stakeholders in the Netherlands, ‘Brussels’ and Europe).

Parliament has already received a first version of the intended overview of spatially relevant EU dossiers.19 In addition to a number of general dossiers (such as the Lisbon Strategy and the EU Sustainability Strategy), this overview contains more specific dossiers not only on the subjects of environment and living (air quality, soil, water directives, urban environment) but also on cohesion, water, transport and agriculture. These EU dossiers are marked as spatially relevant. Dutch efforts Spatially relevant EU policy and regulations can affect the quality of our country’s spatial planning. An active contribution in Brussels decision making is required, with regard to both policy and regulations (EC directives). This contribution must be aimed at utilising opportunities and promoting Dutch interests in the development of new policies and regulations in order to achieve the most positive effects possible. 5.2 European Territorial Agenda for a prosperous and sustainable Europe The Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment (VROM) advocates a more mindful approach to the spatial dimension of EU policy. The intention is to gain a better

19 See the appendix to the Minister of VROM’s letter to the Upper House regarding the implementation of the Meindertsma motion and others, 2006/306958, 21 Nov. 2006.

53

understanding of the spatial effects of European policy and to strengthen Europe’s spatial structures (urban networks, infrastructure and ecosystems at European level). This has led to a greater awareness, which is evidenced by current strategy and a more integral approach to the social, economic and territorial cohesion policy, by the countryside development programmes (POP), by the urban policy and the thematic strategies. Concrete products are the ESDP (the European Spatial Development Perspective), ESPON (European Spatial Planning Observatory Network) and the programmes for trans-boundary co-operation (INTERREG). Together with the other EU member states, the Netherlands is now focusing on establishing an EU Territorial Agenda. In Rotterdam at the end of November 2004 under Dutch chairmanship, the ministers of the EU member states who are responsible for spatial development determined that strengthening the spatial structures and the very diverse potential of the various regions and cities of Europe can contribute to the Lisbon Strategy and the Gothenburg Strategy. Investments, including those of the EU, must therefore be related to the specific identity and quality of the regions to be developed. The territorial agenda is to be set up based, amongst other sources, on an analysis of international spatial processes and trends – the ‘Territorial State and Perspectives of the Union’. The ESPON programme provided a large part of the background analytical information for this analysis. For this reason, the Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment (VROM) is dedicated to good, policy-orientated substantiation of the following ESPON II for the period 2007–2013. As a continuation of this, the Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment (VROM) is working on an analysis of the Netherlands’ position in the (North-West) European space. In Leipzig in May 2007, the above-mentioned ministers will determine the ‘Territorial Agenda’ with concrete agreements on the inclusion of spatial considerations in EU policy, so that the territorial context and structures can be strengthened within the EU. The agenda also contains the possible introduction of a territorial impact assessment and the promotion of trans-boundary co-operation. Dutch efforts In collaboration with the EU partners, the Netherlands will strive for a practicable and widely supported territorial agenda that makes spatial processes and trends more visible (ESPON II), stimulates the political debate on the spatial impact of EU policy and promotes the spatial relationship of the policy, as well as contributing to fundamental EU policy objectives such as the Lisbon Agenda and sustainable development strategies. 5.3 Trans-boundary co-operation National policy is strongly influenced by international spatial processes and relationships in Europe. Co-operation with neighbouring countries, the federal states of Nordrhein-Westfalen (NRW, North Rhine-Westphalia) and Niedersachsen (NS, Lower Saxony) and the regions of Flanders and Wallonia, offer opportunities to realize national spatial policy objectives, as mentioned in the Space Implementation Agenda 2006. It can be profitable to look across the borders, for instance for the preservation of valuable trans-boundary spaces and waters, the development of urban networks and to co-ordinate trans-boundary infrastructure for transport and water management. In accordance with the Cabinet’s guiding philosophy (‘decentralise where possible, centralise when inevitable’), existing trans-boundary co-operation will mainly be the task of decentralised authorities. The State has a facilitating role. The following trans-boundary collaborative actions are planned in close co-operation with the neighbouring countries, the federal states and regions and Dutch local authorities:

- Consultation with Germany (NRW and NS) and Belgium (the regions), co-operation and planning consultation on water management, environment, traffic & transport and spatial planning (Dutch-German Commission for Spatial Planning (NDCRO) and the Benelux Economic Union (BEU);

54

- Co-ordination with the neighbouring countries (Federal States, Regions) regarding the trans-boundary organisation of river basin areas (the Provinces, the Ministries of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment (VROM) , Transport, Public Works and Water Management (V&W) and Nature Management (LNV);

- Development of a vision for international co-operation regarding the knowledge economy within the northern connection axis (from Amsterdam via North Netherlands to Hamburg) and the improvement of accessibility within this axis.

- The possible inclusion of the A1 motorway and the Amsterdam–Berlin railway in the list of priority axes (Trans-European Networks);

- Development of a vision (2006) of the desired course of development for the area of Arnhem-Nijmegen in relationship to the ANKE border area (Arnhem, Nijmegen, Kleve, Emmerich);

- The development of a related green network between the Netherlands, Belgium and Germany;

- Development of a vision for the desired development of the Antwerp–Rotterdam corridor, including the Logistical Master Plan for the two harbours and IJzeren Rijn;

- Strengthening of the operational co-operation between National Urban Networks (NSM) in the border area between the Netherlands and Flanders, Wallonia, North Rhine Westphalia and Lower Saxony;

- Improvement in opening up the NSN Zuid-Limburg (MAHHL), Brabantstad and the Vlaamse Ruit, and the sponsoring of international co-operation on knowledge in the ‘knowledge triangle’ of Eindhoven-Louvain-Achen (ELA);

- Study of the benefits and necessity of 4-storey container shipping between Louvain and Born and the function of the Caberg Canal (spatial investment) (Flanders and the Ministries of Transport, Public Works and Water Management (V&W) and Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment (VROM).

Dutch efforts According to the Space Bill, it is important to be in unison with European spatial structures in order to implement national policy. Examples of this are the Trans-European Networks (TENs) and Natura 2000. The Cabinet wishes to use the strategic position of the Netherlands in the North-West Europe urban network and to develop trans-boundary networks. Lastly, the Cabinet is endeavouring to promote economic and ecological maritime co-operation with regard to the North Sea and the Waddenzee. 5.4 Strengthening of regional structures and territorial cohesion within the EU An important point on the EU Territorial Agenda is the subsidising of trans-boundary and trans-national co-operation in connection with the Cohesion Policy. Objective 3 of the EU Cohesion Policy is aimed at promoting ‘European Territorial Co-operation’ (see Chapter 7.9). The programmes that will be set up in this context can contribute to the implementation of the trans-boundary and trans-national aspects of the Space Policy Bill. Dutch efforts in the forthcoming period Where possible, EU financing will be used in connection with objective 3 (European Territorial Co-operation) of the Cohesion policy to finance projects that contribute to the above-mentioned or related trans-boundary bottlenecks and opportunities.

55

6. Habitat/Urban environment 6.1 UN Habitat The United Nations programme for the advancement of a sustainable housing and living climate, as laid down during the UN conference in Istanbul in 1996 (in short: UN Habitat), has two key objectives. Firstly, to ensure suitable housing and secondly, the promotion of a sustainable housing and living climate. UN Habitat has always endeavoured to establish policy priorities from amongst a multitude of subjects. Under the Millennium Development Goals, the situation of 100 million slum dwellers must be significantly improved by 2020. In addition to the United Kingdom and Canada amongst others, the Netherlands is a relatively large donor with a regular financial contribution of €1.1 million. During the previous period, the support of the Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment (VROM) has been aimed at promoting urban development by, amongst other efforts, its all-round financial support of the UN programme. The efforts of the Ministry of Development Co-operation have been aimed at counteracting the effects of urbanisation in particular, namely the degradation of national amenities.

The Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment (VROM) was the initiator/founder of the international year of the homeless (1987) and, together with the Ministry of Foreign affairs, has also been co-provider of subsidies Stichting Habitat Platform (SHP, Habitat Platform Foundation) since 1996 to the present-day. The SHP’s aim was to implement the established habitat agenda in the Netherlands and abroad. The SHP was also to have served as a co-ordination point for information and documentation to increase public awareness of the habitat agenda. The way the SHP has functioned has been repeatedly criticised in recent years. Together with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, a modern organisation form that can support UN Habitat suitably from 2007 onwards is being sought as an alternative to the SHP. The possibility of supporting Habitat more effectively via other UN programmes is being examined, again in co-operation with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. During the World Urban Forum in Vancouver, the Minister of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment (VROM) agreed to organise the annual international World Habitat Day in 2007 in collaboration with municipality of The Hague. The subject chosen by the UN for 2007 is “Cities and Justice”, which provides an opportunity to highlight two subjects that are high on the UN’s agenda, namely equal (land) rights, as well as women and the exchange of knowledge regarding housing policy. The conference will also include the subject of migration. World Habitat Day will be an opportunity for The Hague and the Netherlands to strengthen their positions as the city and country of justice. The Netherlands already has the possibility of promoting good management worldwide via institutions that have been established here such as Europol and the International Criminal Court. An additional effect is that much excellent legal knowledge and many employment possibilities are centred in the Hague. The accommodation of these organisations is provided by the VROM’s Government Buildings Agency. Dutch efforts in the forthcoming period The details of the plans for World Habitat Day 2007 and the associated follow-up events in the ensuing years must be completed in November 2006. The aim of the meeting is to ask for attention to be paid to the increased effectiveness of the UN programmes, including UN Habitat. 6.2 European Harmonisation As is the case with space, there is a need to approach European regulations on construction and housing pro-actively. This is also necessary to prevent suitable Dutch measures from being changed to such an extent that the desired social (housing) and economic developments become too expensive or even impossible due to European demands. Three European developments directly affect housing and construction. Firstly, the tendering and purchasing policies of government authorities, which have had to be carried out on the

56

terms stipulated by Europe since 1970 and increasingly entail more compulsory and costly environmental components. Secondly, the European harmonisation of product and construction methods since about 1990, which have had the result that specific Dutch requirements for safety and health can now only be imposed in a European context. Thirdly, there is the commitment to save energy in built-up areas. Although the Netherlands was a forerunner in this field for a long time, a number of countries are now ahead of the Netherlands in incorporating stimulating measures into their own legislation. In connection with the European Union’s focused support of energy saving in the new EU member states, the Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment (VROM) is involved in a pilot project in Slovakia. Apart from new ties with cities, this pilot project provides information especially on how to make social housing energy saving and comfortable at a reasonable cost. In addition to participating in the fixed standard-setting commissions, which also focus on reducing administrative burdens, the VROM is increasingly participating in expert work groups. A specific harmonisation effect plays a role with regard to “dangerous substances”. The Dutch building materials resolution contains national construction regulations to prevent dangerous substances from leaching out of building materials. The planned revision of the European building products directive may have two undesirable effects on Dutch environmental protection for building materials. Firstly, the effectiveness of the Building Materials Resolution will be restricted, with the result that leaching out of, for instance, heavy metals from building materials can only be regulated at European level. The second undesirable effect is that European regulations require the use of recycled materials (waste, raw materials), which could increase pressure on the environment. Dutch efforts in the forthcoming period Firstly, the effort with regard to European tendering and purchasing policy is to increase the possibilities of reducing registration costs and secondly, to promote innovation and green purchasing in a locally appropriate way. The harmonisation of European and international norms must firstly lead to building remaining constructive, safe and economical. Secondly, it must ensure that Dutch building methods and materials are permitted according to international rules (such as, for instance, the use of recycled materials). 6.3 State support and housing corporations In a letter dated 14 July 2005, the European Commission made its verdict on state support to Dutch housing corporations known. It stated that the corporations’ task description was not sufficiently clear. According to the Commission, the corporations’ activities must be directly linked to socially deprived households. In September 2005, the Netherlands informed the Commission that it was willing to make the necessary changes to Dutch regulations. The changes were presented to the Lower House in a letter dated 12 December 2005. Amongst other measures, it proposed to limit the corporations’ target group to incomes up to 33,000 Euros. In addition, it stated that social activities carried out with state support must be separated from commercial activities carried out without state support, whereby a corporation would be limited as to its social activities and would conduct its commercial activities via a so-called ‘tied subsidiary’. When the letter was dealt with in the Lower House on 31 August 2006, the House expressed its criticism of both the target group limit and the legal separation. The House also expressed its desire to assign the tasks of restructuring and social purchasing to the corporations. On 21 September 2006, a reaction was sent to the Lower House regarding, amongst other items, a definition of the housing corporations’ social activities. An informative letter was also sent to the Commission on 12 October 2006. A final deliberation in the Lower House must create clarity regarding the suggestions on how to define the current tasks of housing corporations, including a decision on target group determination and tasks with regard to restructuring and social purchasing. The details of legislation and regulations will have to be presented to and discussed with the European Commission as soon as possible (in all probability in 2007).

57

Dutch efforts in the forthcoming period The Netherlands will direct its efforts towards maintaining the achievements of Dutch housing in a situation where there is no question of unlawful state support of the corporations. This means that the corporations have a broad mission (housing the target group, investing in housing construction and restructuring), with only the social activities being state supported. 6.4 Energy performance of buildings The “Energy Performance of Buildings Directive” (EPBD) was published in 2003. The directive states that virtually all buildings with living and residential/office space must firstly meet the minimum standard values for energy conservation and secondly, must have an energy certificate when sold or let and finally, that heating/cooling installations must be inspected regularly. In addition to an indication of the current energy performance, the energy certificate must also contain non-compulsory recommendations for improvement. The directive focuses on making the energy-saving potential of buildings clear to owners/users, translated where possible into concrete but non-compulsory measures. According to the directive, public buildings must be in possession of an energy certificate as a priority, due to their potential function as examples. The Dutch (building) regulations already fulfil the requirements of the directive regarding normative guidelines to a large extent. Current regulations offer few pointers for the compulsory inspection of smaller heating/cooling installations. Following a previous postponement by the Cabinet in the summer of 2005, due to an additional study into the possibility to further reduce the directive’s administrative burdens and increase the social benefits, the Resolution on Energy-saving for Buildings (Besluit Energiebesparing Gebouwen – BEG) accompanied by a Council of State recommendation, will soon be submitted to the Cabinet Council for approval. In September 2006, the Regulation on Energy-saving for Buildings (Regeling Energiebesparing Gebouwen – REG) was sent to the European Commission by way of notification. The BEG and REG can be published once the notification procedure has been completed. A decision as to the date when the directive will come into force is still to be made and depends on the speed with which sufficient certified providers of the energy performance certificate become available. Software tools, training courses and a quality assurance system will be available from January 2007. In addition to providing standards, calculating methods and a quality assurance system in 2007, the implementation suggestions emphasise in particular that providers must be qualified and that owners of buildings and supervising parties such as notaries must be informed. In order to limit the administrative burden as much as possible and employ the inspectors as effectively as possible, “EPA Certificates” and new buildings will, where possible, fall under a provisional regulation for up to 10 years after being issued/completed. Three years after formal publication and in accordance with the directive’s wish to make building requirements ever more stringent, the European Commission is currently researching the first improvements to the directive. Dutch efforts in the forthcoming period During the forthcoming period, the emphasis will be on the timely preparation of instruments and on intensifying communication. At the beginning of 2007, a second notification of the REG has to be submitted in connection with a few small changes, the cancellation system must be ready and market developments must be followed. Moreover, the coming into force of the regulation is to be accomplished in 2007 and the accompanying instruments are to be developed further. A policy letter will shortly be submitted to the Lower House for this purpose. There is therefore a significant connection with the implementation of the Energy Service Directive (ESD). The letter will be signed by the ministers of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment (VROM) and Economic Affairs (EZ).

58

7. Cross-sectional (VROM) subjects 7.1 Compliance procedures for environmental directives In recent years, the Netherlands has successfully made a strong case for the development of compliance procedures for environmental directives. Implementation and compliance with directive obligations are of prime importance and, to a large extent, determine the success and effectiveness of any directive. In the meantime, the compliance procedure has come into operation for a large number of environmental problems, most recently the compliance procedure for the Kyoto Protocol. Negotiations have already begun for a number of conventions but have not yet been finalised (the Stockholm Convention on persistent organically polluting substances; the Rotterdam Convention on the procedure for prior informed consent regarding certain dangerous chemicals and pesticides in international trade). Dutch efforts in the forthcoming period Dutch efforts will be directed towards the negotiation and introduction of an effective and workable compliance procedure under the Stockholm and Rotterdam Conventions. In accordance with existing policy, the aim is to arrive at a procedure that facilitates, promotes and guarantees the implementation of and compliance with the conventions’ obligations by (a) identifying implementation and compliance problems experienced by the parties to the conventions as early as possible, (b) analysing the underlying causes of such problems and (c) formulating the most suitable and effective solutions to them. Now that experience with applying the current compliance procedures is increasing, more attention will also be paid to the application and implementation of these procedures, including their effectiveness. 7.2 Enforcement European enforcement Both the effectiveness of the European environmental regulations and the endeavour to create a level playing field within the EU, benefit from good implementation and enforcement in all member states. The Sixth Environmental Action Programme determined correctly that the implementation of legislation must be improved, and that the priority activity was: The promotion of a more effective implementation of the communal environmental legislation by: • supporting the exchange of information regarding best implementation practices via

IMPEL networks ; • measures to combat environmental crime; • promoting improved standards of inspection and monitoring by member states. The implementation of this action has not succeeded as yet. In recent years, the Commission has not increased investment in the exchange of good practices and its support of the eminently suitable IMPEL network for this purpose has declined. Many regulations, such as those on the transportation of waste and dangerous substances, can only be effectively enforced internationally. The level of implementation and enforcement in Europe is far from equal in all areas. The implementation of the important European Recommendation in member states regarding the minimum criteria for environmental inspections20 revealed shortcomings. Increased attention is (rightly) being paid to the economic and other effects of legislation, however, implementation and enforcement are often still under-exposed. More systematic attention must be paid to these aspects during the various phases of the legislative process. Dutch efforts in the forthcoming period In the forthcoming period, Dutch efforts will be directed towards realizing an adequate and equal level of implementation and enforcement of the European environmental regulations in all member states. The Netherlands will bring this important message to the fore during the review of the Sixth Environmental Action Programme. The review of the ‘Recommendation on Minimum Criteria

20 Recommendation on Minimum Criteria for Environmental Inspections (2001/331/EC).

59

for Environmental Inspections’, which will be settled in 2007, must lead to clearer and more concrete guidelines and agreements regarding the capacity and quality of enforcement in the member states. It remains to be seen whether the Recommendation’s scope can be increased. Efforts will also be focused on ensuring that the Commission will facilitate the exchange of information and actual co-operation regarding implementation and enforcement in the member states more actively. In particular, the Commission should more strongly promote enforcement co-operation for trans-boundary activities between member states. The Netherlands will also actively continue to appeal to the other member states to invest in co-operation regarding implementation and enforcement. When European environmental measures are being formulated, the Netherlands will also advocate a more systematic approach to their implementation and enforcement. Experiences gathered when implementing and enforcing European environment regulations should be fed back to the policy makers and regulators more directly, via monitoring and evaluation. In as much as the European Commission may suggest harmonisation of sanctions in concrete cases, the Netherlands finds it important that the principle of opportunity regarding prosecution be respected and that member states retain the freedom to decide whether to enforce administrative or criminal legal action. Global enforcement Effective implementation and enforcement is not only a European concern. In the wider international context, it is also of utmost importance that conventions and regulations are implemented, complied with and enforced. Many countries and regions will still have to invest heavily in awareness and the generation of capacity to achieve this. The International Network for Environmental Compliance and Enforcement (INECE) is active in this area. The INECE, which was founded in 1989 by the Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment (VROM) and the American EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), is supported amongst others by UNEP, the World Bank, the OECD and the European Commission. Approximately 4,000 professionals from more than 100 countries work for the INECE as a network for supervision, enforcement, justice administration, science and international co-operation to stimulate the worldwide implementation, realization and enforcement of environmental regulations. The environment is broadly interpreted and embraces the so-called grey (emissions, waste), green (nature, bio-diversity) and blue (water quality) colour designations. Promoting and achieving ‘good governance’ plays an important role as the basis for sustainable development. The INECE’s products consist in international and regional workshops and conferences, publications, a website, education/training, development and the exchange of knowledge and methods, support for network activities and concrete co-operation in various regions of the world. In this regard, the INECE was recently involved in setting up a regional enforcement network in the Maghreb region of North Africa and in Asia. The course ‘Principles of Environmental Enforcement’ is a popular product in many countries. Dutch efforts in the forthcoming period Dutch efforts will be aimed at further underlining the importance of the worldwide implementation and enforcement of environmental regulations. Sustainable development and good governance will be the key concepts. More efforts will have to be applied to concrete and practical co-operation activities (also between networks) in particular, to combat illegal international waste transports and other (organised) large-scale environmental crime. (see also Chapter 1.8: Basel Convention) 7.3 European Sustainable Development Strategy (EU-SDS) Sustainable development is one of Europe’s key objectives. At the European Council of 15/16 June 2006, the government leaders adopted the revised European Strategy for Sustainable Development, which also confirms it. After the European Commission’s publication of a new strategy in December 2005, the Austrian Chairmanship took the initiative of setting up an ambitious and comprehensive strategy. Austria succeeded in its intention and started a new and intensive process for discussing the new strategy. The European Sustainability Strategy was discussed in ten European professional councils and the so-called Friends of the

60

Presidency group where, in particular, intersecting subjects such as governance, follow-up and monitoring were discussed. In the revised version, a seventh subject – sustainable production and consumption – was added to climate/energy, sustainable transport, natural resources, health, social inclusion/demography/migration and combating poverty. The most important objectives and a list of actions were included. In addition to the above-mentioned intersecting subjects, actions concerned with education and training, research, financial and economic instruments and communication were also included. The Netherlands played an active role in this process. Many of the Dutch text suggestions were adopted in the revised strategy. Concrete actions endorsed by the Netherlands were: - stimulating eco-efficient innovations. In the European Sustainability Strategy it was

agreed that both the Commission and the member states must do more to stimulate eco-efficient innovations;

- sustainable purchasing by government authorities. In the European Sustainability Strategy it was agreed that before 2010, the EU will have attained an average level of sustainable purchasing that is equal to that of the highest achieving member states. This is an opportunity for the Netherlands to assume a pioneering role in the EU. The Netherlands’ aim is to include sustainability as an important criterion in 100% of state purchases by 2010 at the latest;

- environmentally damaging subsidies. It has been agreed that the Commission will propose a step-by-step plan per sector for reforming environmentally damaging subsidies before 2008;

- sustainable transport. The suggestion put forward by the Netherlands, that the EU and the member states should undertake actions to improve the environmental performance of all forms of transport (transport by road, rail, air and water), has been included here.

The Netherlands will also have to make a start on implementing the agreed actions nationally. In this context, it is obvious that the new Dutch strategy for sustainable development, Sustainable Endeavour, will have to be co-ordinated with the European Sustainability Strategy. The first preparations have already been started. This concerns a dossier with spatial effects. 7.4 INSPIRE (INfrastructure for SPatial InfoRmation in Europe) INSPIRE is an initiative of the European Commission to arrive at a European infrastructure for harmonising and exchanging geo-information for the benefit of environmental policy. Government authorities, citizens and European institutions will receive access to more exchangeable (existing) information on the environment via a geo-portal on a Dutch and European level. This development fits in well with the Netherlands’ aim for the exchange and transparency of government data and with the current Streamlining of Basic Data programme (Stroomlijning Basisgegevens). An accord was reached in Brussels on Wednesday, 22 November between the Council, the European Parliament and the European Commission, and the directive will be determined during the first environment council under the German Chairmanship (1st half of 2007). The accord was preceded by lengthy discussions. The member states and the European Parliament were at variance for a considerable time regarding a number of points in the directive. Dutch efforts in the forthcoming period Once the directive has been determined in the spring, INSPIRE will have to be incorporated into Dutch legislation. A geo-portal will also have to be organised in which all the Dutch data regarding the environment and spatial planning are gathered, so that they can be harmonised. The preparatory work for these activities has already been started. This concerns a dossier with spatial effects.

61

7.5 Review of 6th Environmental Action Programme (6th EAP) The sixth Environmental Action Programme (6th EAP) of the European Commission was published in 2002. In the 6th EAP, which runs from 2002 up to and including 2012, the Commission decided on a new strategic approach to European environmental policy in the form of (seven) Thematic Strategies, i.e., air quality, natural resources, waste prevention and recycling, marine environment, pesticides, soil and urban environment. All the strategies have been published meanwhile, albeit with the necessary delays. In most cases (air quality, pesticides, waste, marine environment and soil), the strategies are accompanied by proposals for legislation. The 6th EAP states that a review must be organised in 2006. The contents of these seven subjects have been discussed elsewhere in this document. The review will appear too late to be dealt with during the Environment Council in December 2006. It is expected that it will be dealt with in the form of Council Conclusions during 2007. Dutch efforts in the forthcoming period From a formal point of view, the Commission only needs to report on the progress of implementation. However, the Netherlands would like to see the Commission go a step further than a mere rendering of the actual state of affairs. The Netherlands will therefore appeal to the Commission to provide a glimpse into the remaining period of the 6th EAP (until 2012) based on the current state of affairs. What will the most important challenges be with regard to European environmental policy for this period and what will this signify when it comes to prioritising the Commission’s work? For this reason, and because the 6th EAP affects almost the whole of European environment policy, this dossier will be followed with intense interest. A specific point to which the Netherlands will draw attention, is that the possible legislation resulting from future thematic strategies will be disconnected. In the case of the current seven strategies, the Commission has elected to write a “towards” document (in the form of an announcement) in the first phase, which will give direction to the following thematic strategy. In most cases (air quality, waste, marine environment, pesticides and soil) the strategy will be published later, at the same time as the resulting legislation. This allows the Council and the European Parliament hardly any room to give political direction to the thematic strategy. In the Netherlands’ opinion, the Council and the European Parliament must be offered an opportunity to exchange ideas on (the contents, course, priorities and implementation modalities of) the thematic strategy with the Commission first, so that it can then proceed with the legislation proposal with that discussion in mind. Another point that is important to the Netherlands is that compulsory objectives must always be adequately supported by EU-wide (source) measures. In this way, the Commission can be collectively given footholds in aid of the final, legally binding element. Attention to this point will also be requested in the context of the review. The Netherlands regrets the fact that most of the strategies have taken so long and sees the most important reason for this as being the broad co-ordination of these strategies within the Commission. The commitment that this has created is indeed laudable when it comes to divided responsibility. However, divided responsibility must not lead to lower ambitions or to such lengthy delays that the objectives stated cannot be achieved due to a lack of communication instruments. In its efforts regarding this dossier, the VROM’s interpretation of the recommendations regarding co-ordination of European policy in the Netherlands is clearly visible. The Netherlands’ was already working on its contribution to this dossier at an early stage. In this context, attention will naturally also be requested for the relationship between quality objectives and source policy, and for the future uncoupling of the thematic strategies and the resulting legislation. 7.6 Aarhus Convention The 1998 UN/ECE Convention on access to information, participation in decision making and access to the courts regarding environmental matters (Aarhus Convention) came into operation in October 2001. The European Community has been a party to this Convention since February 2005. European legislation has also been adapted as a result of the

62

Convention (access to environmental information) and has been expanded (participation in decision-making). The application of the Convention on European Institutions has been regulated in a separate ruling. The European Commission’s proposal to regulate access to the courts in a European directive has also never been dealt with up to now and there is no indication that this will happen in 2007. The Convention came into force in the Netherlands on 1 April 2005, at which time all Dutch legislation had been brought into line with the Convention and concomitantly also with EU legislation. In May 2005, the second meeting of the parties was successfully concluded. After the start-up phase, the Convention is now truly in its implementation stage. Amongst other measures, an amendment to the Convention was adopted regarding greater involvement in decision making on genetically modified organisms and the compliance regimen is being applied in practice. A further resolution worth mentioning concerns the way in which the parties to the Convention should apply the principles of the Convention to other environment-related forums. Guidelines for this have been developed. In the meantime, consultations are being held with these forums. The third meeting of the parties will be held in 2008, probably in Latvia. Dutch efforts in the forthcoming period The Netherlands has always supported and stimulated the involvement of the public and NGOs, as this can contribute to better decision making and creates greater support for the implementation of resolutions. Greater transparency regarding the environment will have the result that citizens are better informed about their own health and well-being. In future, the Netherlands will also devote itself to sharing its own high requirements regarding transparency and the involvement of NGOs with the Convention parties outside the EU. The Netherlands will devote itself to implementing and promulgating the concepts of the Aarhus Convention in countries outside the EU, amongst others by financing projects in Eastern Europe, the Caucasus and Central Asia and by contributing towards building up capacity. As a party to the Convention, the Netherlands will also devote itself to applying the Aarhus principles to other international environmental conventions and forums. The guidelines mentioned will be a useful aid in this. In the meantime, the Netherlands has made a start on approving the amendment to the Convention regarding genetically modified organisms, which was agreed in 2005. 7.7 Revision of the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive: IPPC An informal preparation process has been underway since the beginning of 2006 as a prelude to the revision of the IPPC Directive (Directive 96/61/EC). IPPC stands for Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control, whose objective is to limit environmental pollution by industry and intensive livestock farming by, for instance, limiting emissions into the air, water and soil, in order to achieve a high level of environmental protection as a whole. The IPPC Directive came into force for new companies at the end of 1999 and contains important changes for existing companies. In October 2007, the Directive comes into force for all companies. This Directive can make a major contribution towards reducing (trans-boundary) pollution generated by industrial activities in Europe. The core of the Directive is the integral granting of permits. The IPPC Directive has many aspects in common with a large number of other EU regulations. The European Commission intends to revise the Directive and has started a trajectory whereby expert groups, in which the Netherlands is participating, discuss the elements of the review. The Commission has divided this review into three strands: 1) the IPPC Directive is one of the instruments for realizing the seven thematic strategies; 2) stimulating innovation (“going beyond regulatory compliance”) and 3) streamlining European regulations (inspired by the Commission’s Better Regulation initiative). The trajectory, as intended by the Commission, entails that studies have been and will be set up during the course of 2006 and 2007 regarding: (1) implementation, environmental and competitive effects of the IPPC Directive; (2) streamlining the IPPC Directive and related regulations, including interaction with emissions trading; (3) ex ante evaluation of a number of possible changes to the IPPC Directive, such as extending its range; (4) a study regarding the promotion of continuing environmental achievements. The Commission will publish a Statement in 2007/2008, describing the Commission’s intentions regarding the new IPPC Directive. Member states and others involved will be given

63

the opportunity to react to it. According to the Commission’s current planning, a proposal for the new IPPC Directive will be published in 2008/2009. Dutch efforts regarding the revision The Netherlands wishes to tackle the revision of the IPPC Directive on making better use of the innovative potential of the IPPC Directive. The Netherlands’ main effort regarding the revision will be to strengthen the directive by making it more effective and innovative. The current system, largely based on the concept of the ‘best available techniques’, has the undesirable side-effect that innovation becomes unattractive because the proven techniques “of yesteryear” are the benchmark. The environment as an opportunity, viewed also in the light of the Lisbon Strategy on a European scale, can be made concrete here. Moreover, by relating to the Commission’s Better Regulation initiative and by responding to the reduction of costs and liabilities and making implementation more efficient, the quality of this Directive and consequently the national implementation regulation, will be improved. In this way, more ambitious emission levels can be realized cost effectively. 7.8 Espoo Convention The Espoo Convention concerning environmental effect reporting in a trans-boundary context came into being in the Nineties under the auspices of the UN/ECE (United Nations Economic Commission for Europe). It came into force in 1997 and now has 41 Parties, including the Netherlands and the European Community. In a nutshell, the Convention prescribes that an environmental effect report must be set up if a country’s activities have a substantial environmental effect on a neighbouring country. The neighbouring country must also be involved in the decision-making procedure, as the (environmental) interests of that country must be taken into account. At the third meeting of the Parties in 2004, a work programme was determined for the Convention for the period 2004–2007/8. The most important activities of this programme are aimed at implementation, the exchange of ‘best practices’, increasing capacity and sub-regional co-operation. Also important in the prelude to the next meeting of the Parties (2008) are the institutional and procedural preparations for the coming into force of the Protocol with regard to strategic environment assessment (SEA Protocol). This Protocol was established under the Espoo Convention in 2003 during the Ministers’ UN/ECE Conference ‘Environment for Europe’ in Kiev. Within the EU, the most important obligations of the Convention and the SEA Protocol have been converted into European regulations. Dutch efforts in the forthcoming period Efforts will continue to be devoted to the efficient execution of the work programme agreed to in 2004. The Dutch priority is the part of the programme that aims to improve the implementation of and compliance with the Convention. Attention will also be paid to the preparations for the coming into force of the SEA Protocol, regarding which the Netherlands will specifically focus on the development of an optimal institutional and procedural relationship between the Convention and the Protocol. The approval of the SEA Protocol by the Netherlands is also on the agenda for the forthcoming period. 7.9 Financial Perspectives 2007–2013 The Financial Perspectives (FPs) include the seven-year EU budget. As it concerns the entire budget, this dossier is important for all policy subjects of the EU that involve money. During the European Council of December 2005, a political accord was reached regarding the FPs. A “review” was agreed to in the accord, which starts in 2007 and ends in 2008/9. The review will presumably be governed by large issues such as the interests of the United Kingdom (the continuation of the agricultural subsidies). When the budget was determined, these fundamental questions were not definitely finalised. Perhaps the spatial and environmental subjects will also be discussed during the review. Cohesion Policy/ Structural Funds Cohesion Policy forms part of the Financial Perspectives. The Ministry of Economic Affairs is co-ordinating this dossier. The Cohesion Policy (which, similar to the agricultural policy, is one of the largest parts) of the Financial Perspectives focuses on three objectives: (1) the convergence of poorer regions, (2) the competitiveness of all regions and (3) territorial (spatial) co-operation.

64

The operational programmes that are being set up in the Netherlands in connection with the 2007–2013 Cohesion policy, must link up with the National Strategic Frame of Reference, which was determined in the Ministers’ Council at the end of September. The Community Strategic Guidelines that give direction to the national strategies and operational programmes were approved by the European Parliament and Council in September. In the National Strategic Frame of Reference, the Cabinet indicates how the Structural Funds can be applied effectively and efficiently to strengthen the competitiveness of our country, and it will be submitted to the European Commission in November. The three priorities of the Lisbon Agenda form the basis for the National Strategic Frame of Reference, namely:

- attractive regions and cities; - innovation, entrepreneurship and a knowledge economy, and - more and better jobs.

It is anticipated that the implementation of the operational programmes can begin in 2007. Both the Ministry for Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment (VROM) and Economic Affairs (EZ) are responsible for certain co-operation programmes under objective 3, “EU territorial co-operation”, stemming from the policy objectives of the ‘Space Bill’ and ‘Peaks in the Delta’. It may be assumed that the EU financing available to the Netherlands will be used under objective 3 for the implementation of the trans-boundary aspects of both these policy bills (see Chapter 5). In addition, the Ministry for Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment (VROM) will continue to be involved with finalising the current INTERREG IIB, IIC and ESPON programmes until 2008. Incidentally, the submitted/proposed programmes have to undergo a strategic environmental assessment. As the so-called “environment authority”, the Ministry for Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment (VROM) is responsible for monitoring environmental interests. Dutch efforts in the forthcoming period During the forthcoming period, the Ministry for Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment (VROM) will devote a great deal of energy to the new operational programmes for the completion of Objective 3 (territorial co-operation). As these programmes have to be written jointly with the countries surrounding us, setting them up will entail the necessary negotiations. Providing the strategic environmental assessments will also require the necessary amount of attention. This concerns a dossier with spatial effects. 7.10 LIFE+ LIFE+ is the European subsidy programme for realizing, actualising and developing the community nature and environmental policy, aimed at integration of the environment into other policy areas and therefore on sustainable development. LIFE+ will put the Commission’s sixth Environment Action Programme into effect. LIFE+ comprises three components:

1. nature and bio-diversity (implementation of Natura 2000, the bird and habitat directive)

2. environment and administration (implementation of the 6th EAP for the priorities regarding climate change, environment and health and natural resources and waste)

3. information and communication (distribution of information, creating awareness and supporting accompanying measures).

The duration of LIFE+ is 2007–2013. The amount awarded to the Netherlands is approximately €6.5 million per annum, increasing to approximately €8 to 9 million in 2013. Half must be spent on projects for the nature & bio-diversity component. The other half can be used to support environmental projects. The dossier is currently in the conciliation phase. In the second reading the European Parliament accepted all the amendments against decentralised implementation. This means that the EP Parliament is against the general standpoint of the Council and the EC for the

65

decentralised implementation of LIFE +, whereas the EP wishes LIFE+ to be carried out by the EC (= centrally). The reason given by the EP is that decentralising the programme would lead to the loss of European added value by giving a blank cheque to the member states to carry out projects in their own countries and that decentralisation leads to high administrative burdens for the member countries Dutch efforts in the forthcoming period This dossier will be dealt with in close co-operation with the Ministry of Nature Management (LNV). Via the LIFE+ committee, the Netherlands will devote its efforts to the optimal implementation of the regulation. The LIFE+ committee will also (for the purpose of decentralising the regulation) have to approve the national work programmes of the member states. The Netherlands will support the simplification of the submission procedure. The Netherlands will also try to limit the administrative burden of a possible National Agency. This concerns a dossier with spatial effects.