BETA


2006/2061(INI) Thematic strategy on the urban environment

Progress: Procedure completed

RoleCommitteeRapporteurShadows
Lead ENVI HEGYI Gyula (icon: PSE PSE)
Committee Opinion ITRE
Committee Opinion TRAN Ó NEACHTAIN Seán (icon: UEN UEN)
Committee Opinion REGI KALLENBACH Gisela (icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE)
Lead committee dossier:
Legal Basis:
RoP 52

Events

2006/12/13
   EC - Commission response to text adopted in plenary
Documents
2006/10/19
   EC - Commission response to text adopted in plenary
Documents
2006/09/26
   EP - Results of vote in Parliament
2006/09/26
   EP - Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
Details

The European Parliament adopted a resolution based on the own-initiative report drafted by Gyula HEGYI (PES, HU) in response to the Commission communication on the Thematic Strategy on the Urban Environment (TSUE). The resolution was adopted by 448 votes in favour to 49 against with 110 abstentions. (Please see the summary of 21/06/2006.)

Documents
2006/09/26
   EP - End of procedure in Parliament
2006/09/25
   EP - Debate in Parliament
2006/06/30
   EP - Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
Documents
2006/06/30
   EP - Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
Documents
2006/06/27
   CSL - Resolution/conclusions adopted by Council
Details

The Council adopted conclusions on urban environment. Firstly, it welcomes the Commission's communication on the Thematic Strategy on the Urban Environment, in particular its focus on integrated environmental management and sustainable transport, as a valuable contribution towards tackling the environmental challenges that still persist today in urban areas, such as poor air quality, high volumes of traffic and congestion, ambient noise, poor building environment, urban sprawl and the

loss of green areas and of biodiversity, waste and waste water. It notes that the policies and measures in the Thematic Strategy on the Urban Environment are focusing on principles, guidance, support and facilitation for Member States and their cities to improve their urban environment.

Secondly, calls on Member States to strengthen their endeavours to enable cities, by their policies, to achieve high urban environmental and health quality and to consider the possibilities of National Strategic Reference Frameworks (linked to Cohesion Policy) for covering urban environment issues as well as opportunities in the context of the LIFE+ Regulation and funds. It equally recognises the relevance of the 7th FPRD, as well as the importance of promoting eco-innovation through rapid implementation of the ETAP.

The Commission is encouraged to give guidance on how Member States can use these funds to integrate urban environment into their national plans including i.a. innovative and flexible mechanisms for the funding of urban renovation. It is also invited to provide support and impetus for public participation, in particular by actively facilitating and promoting Local Agenda 21 and the Aalborg Commitments.

The Council welcomes the fact that the Commission will come forward with guidelines on sustainable transport plans including environmental objectives, measures and instruments for environmentally friendly and sustainable urban transport as well as examples of good practice. It recommends that Member States and cities make use of these guidelines in their urban transport policies and ensure that sustainable urban transport plans include environmental objectives and measures to improve and promote urban mobility management, public transport, cycling and walking, alternative fuels (e.g. biogas) and propulsion systems, ultra low emission vehicles and carsharing, as well as intermodal city freight logistics.

The Council invites the Commission to consider further activities to develop and promote guidance and tools to improve the quality of the urban environment e.g. by focusing namely on sustainable urban design, planning and construction as well as water issues.

Member States and cities are called upon to implement and facilitate the Thematic Strategy on the Urban Environment and its proposed areas for action, in particular the environmental management and sustainable transport plans. The Council encourages the establishment of national focal points on urban environment issues (e.g. European Urban Knowledge Network) and the collection of urban environment data and a core-set of indicators, e.g. in the context of 'Urban Audit', to enable progress and the environmental performance of European urban areas to be monitored. The Commission is invited to assess the results of the implementation of the TS and - if appropriate -to propose a revised strategy by 2010.

Lastly, it recommends that synergies and cooperations with international activities in the field of the urban environment like the UNECE WHO Transport Health Environment Pan European Programme THE PEP, the WHO CEHAPE and other relevant initiatives as well as city networks should be aimed at.

2006/06/27
   CSL - Council Meeting
2006/06/21
   EP - Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
Details

The committee adopted the own-initiative report drawn up by Gyula HEGYI (PES, HU) in response to the Commission communication on the Thematic Strategy on the Urban Environment (TSUE). Although MEPs welcomed the Commission's initiative, they nevertheless argued that it did not go far enough towards achieving the goals set in the 6th Environmental Action Programme and regretted that the Commission had not proposed any legally binding measures and deadlines. They also said that the TSUE did not attempt "to balance European policy between urban and rural areas, or between centrally located towns and cities and those in outlying areas".

The report stressed that a Sustainable Urban Management Plan (SUMP) and a Sustainable Urban Transport Plan (SUTP) should be required by Community law for all urban areas with over 100 000 inhabitants. Such a law should include clear deadlines and binding targets at local and European level, as voluntary measures had so far proven ineffective. The committee said that SUMPs should include waste management plans, noise maps and action plans, local air pollution plans and local environmental plans. Citizens, NGOs, business organisations and other stakeholders should be involved in the preparation of the SUMPs, which should be made available to the public. The report also suggested inter alia that more attention be paid "to preventing and removing dirt, litter, graffiti, animals' excrement and excessive noise from domestic and vehicular music systems".

SUTPs should promote non-motorised transport modes such as cycling and walking, promote public transport and tackle growing individual car use, through parking restrictions and congestion charges. The report called for more use of environment-friendly modes of transport and technologies, such as bio-fuels and hybrid car technologies. It also proposes a 5% shift in passenger kilometres from individual transport/cars to sustainable means such as public transport and cycling, within the period 2002-2012. The committee reminded Member States of their responsibility to take into acount the most vulnerable transport users in the design of cities, in line with the aim of reducing road deaths by 50% by 2010 as set out in the White Paper on European Transport Policy. Moreover, it recalled that air pollution was a major cause of health problems in the EU and therefore stressed that cities with high air pollution should consider introducing congestion charges and establishing low emission zones.

Lastly, the report regretted the lack of any specific action in the field of sustainable urban construction, even though this was identified as one of the four focus areas of the TSUE, and stressed the importance of increasing the environmental performance of buildings through energy- and water- efficient house design.

2006/06/01
   EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2006/05/17
   EP - Amendments tabled in committee
Documents
2006/04/24
   EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2006/04/05
   EP - Committee draft report
Documents
2006/03/16
   EP - Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
2006/02/22
   EP - KALLENBACH Gisela (Verts/ALE) appointed as rapporteur in REGI
2006/01/24
   EP - Ó NEACHTAIN Seán (UEN) appointed as rapporteur in TRAN
2006/01/11
   EC - Document attached to the procedure
Details

COMMISSION’S IMPACT ASSESSMENT

For further information regarding the context of this issue, please refer to the summary of the Commission’s Communication to the Council and the European Parliament on a Thematic Strategy on the Urban Environment – COM(2005)0718.

1- POLICY OPTIONS AND IMPACTS

1.1- Option 1: Baseline scenario: The situation without the Thematic Strategy on the Urban Environment. The likely evolution of the challenges facing urban areas in the absence of the Urban Environment Strategy is assessed. The impacts of existing policies and new initiatives such as those announced in other Thematic Strategies are taken into account.

1.2- Option 2: Scenario for the Thematic Strategy: A package of initiatives to facilitate the use of best practice techniques in the integrated management of the environment. The Thematic Strategy will comprise a package of initiatives to support Member States and local authorities in adopting integrated approaches to the management of the urban environment and ultimately improve the environmental performance of urban areas.

CONCLUSION : The preferred approach identified through the Impact Assessment is to encourage the widespread adoption of known and proven techniques by facilitating the exchange of good practice and information, providing guidance on key issues and making available opportunities for Commission support for specific projects and activities. The initiatives proposed contain a high degree of flexibility to reflect the diversity of urban areas across Europe.

IMPACT

Environmental:

▪ Environmental management plans bring benefits in better administrative functioning (decisions with large environmental impacts may be avoided) and in issues such as recycling, green purchasing, improvements to green space and nature conservation. Benefits in areas such as air quality and noise exposure are generally considered to be ‘small’ in scale. Benefits of other measures are likely to be positive and deliver improvements in the quality of the urban environment for instance through facilitating the implementation of the existing legislation.

▪ The scale of benefits from sustainable urban transport plans differs according to a variety of factors. Large benefits are reported for the management of urban transport issues and for issues such as safety and use of public transport. Introducing transport plans brings benefits in addition to measures adopted under air quality legislation since they achieve a wider range of benefits than improving air quality alone.

▪ The measures considered in the Scenario for the Strategy that are obligatory (i.e. the possible Directives) would result in wider use of these management techniques since all large European cities that do not have environmental management plans, sustainable urban transport plans and management systems would be required to adopt them. This would result in between 109-378 new environmental management plans, between 205-297 sustainable urban transport plans and between 310-408 new management systems.

Economic:

▪ The voluntary measures in the Scenario for the Strategy do not impose additional costs. The likely costs that would be incurred should an authority decide to implement the guidance are reasonable and better planning can lead to better use of existing resources with only a marginal increase in costs. Other economic impacts relate to the improved attractiveness of the urban area and its ability to attract employment and investment. Whilst this cannot be quantified, it is a recognised impact.

▪ The measures for obligations to establish environmental management plans, sustainable urban transport plans and management systems would give rise to clear costs to public authorities. It is not expected that the obligations would give rise to direct costs to business or industry.

▪ Some of the measures that may be included in the plans may give rise to costs for business (e.g. road pricing) but since the obligations would not prescribe which measures have to be set out in the plans, these costs are not directly attributable to the possible imposition of the obligations. The objective is to influence the way that existing and future funds are spent, rather than provide new resources for new investment in urban environment measures.

Social: The measures relating to the guidance on management plans and systems could create jobs. Responses to the Commission’s survey reveal that:

▪ 40% of local authorities employed additional staff to help establish and operate the environmental management system,

▪ 45% employed additional staff to develop the environmental management plan, and

▪ 55% of authorities employed additional staff to develop the sustainable urban transport plan.

There may be some double counting in the percentages for the environmental management plan and the environmental management system. Many local authorities have also used external experts in establishing their plans and systems. Measures relating to obligations would be more likely to create jobs.

One of the objectives of the sustainable urban transport plan would be to provide better access to shops and services for those without private transport. This is reported as a ‘small’ benefit. Improvements in the energy performance of buildings or the quality of the urban environment would bring positive impacts, particularly for the poorer and disadvantaged groups who suffer most from these issues.

To the degree that the Scenario for the Strategy brings additional benefits to existing policies (such as air quality and exposure to noise), it will also deliver positive impacts on human health. However, the impact on human health and safety cannot be quantified.

2- FOLLOW-UP

To monitor the effectiveness of this Strategy, up-to-date, accessible urban data are needed. The Commission, with the help of the EEA, and in close cooperation with the Member States, will work to improve European data on urban environment issues without increasing the burden for national, regional or local authorities, in order to evaluate the environmental performance of European urban areas over time. This will be done in the context of INSPIRE (Infrastructure for Spatial Information in Europe) and a link with the GEO and GMES initiatives. The Commission will undertake a further Urban Audit in 2006 and publish a report in 2006 based on indicators describing the living conditions in a number of EU cities, covering economic, social and environmental aspects. To ensure that the views of all urban environment stakeholders are collected and that the process is transparent, a consultation exercise will be organised in 2009 as part of a review of the 6 th Environment Action Programme in 2010.

2006/01/11
   EC - Non-legislative basic document published
Details

PURPOSE : to promote a thematic strategy on the urban environment.

CONTEXT : urban areas play an important role in delivering the objectives of the EU Sustainable Development Strategy. In urban areas the environmental, economic and social dimensions meet most strongly. Cities are where many environmental problems are concentrated, but they are also the economic drivers, the places where business is done and investments are made. Four out of five European citizens live in urban areas, and their quality of life is directly influenced by the state of the urban environment. A high quality urban environment also contributes to the priority of the renewed Lisbon Strategy to make Europe a more attractive place to work and invest.

CONTENT : the measures offered under this Strategy aim to contribute to a better implementation of existing EU environment policies and legislation at the local level by supporting and encouraging local authorities to adopt a more integrated approach to urban management and by inviting Member States to support this process and exploit the opportunities offered at EU level.

If implemented at all levels, the Strategy will ultimately contribute to improve the quality of the urban environment, making cities more attractive and healthier places to live, work and invest in, and reduce the adverse environmental impact of cities on the wider environment, for instance as regards climate change.

The integrated approach to environmental management at the local level and to transport in particular, based on effective consultation of all stakeholders, is key to successful implementation of environment legislation and to achieve long lasting improvements in environmental quality and performance. There is a need to support local authorities in adopting these management techniques.

In this context, the Commission will :

- provide technical guidance in 2006 on integrated environmental management, drawing on experiences and giving good practice examples. Reference will be made to the most relevant EU environmental legislation e.g. air, noise, water, waste and energy efficiency directives;

- provide technical guidance in 2006 on the main aspects of transport plans based on the recommendations of the 2004 Expert Working Group and give best practice examples;

- offer support for the exchange of good practice and for demonstration projects on urban issues for local and regional authorities through these instruments. Member States, regional and local authorities are encouraged to exploit these opportunities;

- evaluate the pilot (end 2006) and consider whether it can be used as a building block for a “European framework programme for the exchange of experience on urban development” under the proposed Cohesion Policy 2007-2013;

- assess the feasibility of establishing a thematic portal for local authorities;

- use the new LIFE+ Regulation and other instruments to support capacity building for local and regional authorities on urban management issues, and it encourages Member States to initiate such activities;

- encourage Member States to exploit these opportunities to address the problems facing their urban areas and give the National Strategic Reference Frameworks an appropriate urban focus;

- offer support for further urban research and will actively involve local authorities and endeavour to make material developed for them available in many languages to facilitate use at the local level.

The Commission states that this strategy is cross-cutting, covering many environmental media and issues. It will contribute to the implementation of the priorities of the 6th EAP and other environmental policies, including the other Thematic Strategies. Different environment policies (air quality, noise etc) ask that abatement plans be drawn up. By placing these plans in the context of a local integrated framework as proposed in this strategy, synergies between many policy areas can be developed, giving improved results, both for the environment and for the overall quality of life in the urban area.

2005/11/29
   EP - HEGYI Gyula (PSE) appointed as rapporteur in ENVI

Documents

Activities

Votes

Rapport Hegyi A6-0233/2006 - par. 19

2006/09/26 Outcome: +: 572, -: 41, 0: 5
DE FR IT ES GB PL HU BE CZ EL PT AT NL SK IE FI DK LT LV SI CY EE MT LU SE ??
Total
91
64
57
52
53
51
21
20
22
19
17
16
25
12
11
13
12
9
7
6
6
6
5
5
17
1
icon: PPE-DE PPE-DE
241

Denmark PPE-DE

For (1)

1

Lithuania PPE-DE

1

Latvia PPE-DE

2

Estonia PPE-DE

For (1)

1

Malta PPE-DE

2

Luxembourg PPE-DE

3
icon: PSE PSE
168

Czechia PSE

2

Ireland PSE

1

Lithuania PSE

For (1)

1

Slovenia PSE

For (1)

1
icon: ALDE ALDE
73

Hungary ALDE

1

Ireland ALDE

For (1)

1

Latvia ALDE

1

Slovenia ALDE

1

Cyprus ALDE

For (1)

1

Estonia ALDE

2

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1

Sweden ALDE

For (1)

3
icon: UEN UEN
23

Ireland UEN

3

Denmark UEN

For (1)

1

Lithuania UEN

2
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
38

Italy Verts/ALE

2

Spain Verts/ALE

Against (1)

3

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

Against (1)

5

Belgium Verts/ALE

2

Austria Verts/ALE

Against (1)

2

Netherlands Verts/ALE

For (1)

Abstain (1)

3

Finland Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Denmark Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Latvia Verts/ALE

1

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Sweden Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
31

France GUE/NGL

2

Spain GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

1

Greece GUE/NGL

1

Portugal GUE/NGL

2

Netherlands GUE/NGL

2

Ireland GUE/NGL

1

Finland GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Cyprus GUE/NGL

2

Sweden GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1
icon: NI NI
25

United Kingdom NI

Against (1)

Abstain (1)

4

Belgium NI

2

Czechia NI

1

Austria NI

For (1)

1

Slovakia NI

1
icon: IND/DEM IND/DEM
19

France IND/DEM

2

United Kingdom IND/DEM

4

Czechia IND/DEM

1

Netherlands IND/DEM

2

Denmark IND/DEM

1

Sweden IND/DEM

2

Rapport Hegyi A6-0233/2006 - résolution

2006/09/26 Outcome: +: 448, 0: 110, -: 49
FR DE IT GB PL ES NL BE HU AT EL PT DK FI LT IE EE SK LV CY SE LU SI MT CZ ??
Total
62
89
53
53
52
52
25
19
21
15
19
16
12
13
8
11
6
11
7
6
17
6
6
5
22
1
icon: PSE PSE
171

Lithuania PSE

For (1)

1

Ireland PSE

1

Luxembourg PSE

For (1)

1

Slovenia PSE

For (1)

1

Czechia PSE

2
icon: ALDE ALDE
73

Hungary ALDE

1

Denmark ALDE

Against (1)

3

Ireland ALDE

For (1)

1

Estonia ALDE

2

Latvia ALDE

1

Cyprus ALDE

For (1)

1

Sweden ALDE

3

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1

Slovenia ALDE

1
icon: PPE-DE PPE-DE
234

Denmark PPE-DE

For (1)

1

Finland PPE-DE

Against (1)

Abstain (1)

4

Estonia PPE-DE

For (1)

1

Latvia PPE-DE

2

Cyprus PPE-DE

Abstain (1)

3

Luxembourg PPE-DE

For (1)

3

Slovenia PPE-DE

For (1)

4

Malta PPE-DE

Abstain (2)

2
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
34

Italy Verts/ALE

1

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

5

Netherlands Verts/ALE

Abstain (1)

3

Belgium Verts/ALE

2

Austria Verts/ALE

1

Denmark Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Finland Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Latvia Verts/ALE

1

Sweden Verts/ALE

Abstain (1)

1

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
29

France GUE/NGL

2

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

1

Spain GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Netherlands GUE/NGL

2

Greece GUE/NGL

1

Finland GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Ireland GUE/NGL

1

Cyprus GUE/NGL

2

Sweden GUE/NGL

1

GUE/NGL

For (1)

1
icon: UEN UEN
22

Denmark UEN

For (1)

1

Lithuania UEN

2

Ireland UEN

3
icon: NI NI
25

United Kingdom NI

Abstain (2)

4

Belgium NI

2

Austria NI

For (1)

1

Slovakia NI

1

Czechia NI

Against (1)

1
icon: IND/DEM IND/DEM
19

France IND/DEM

2

United Kingdom IND/DEM

4

Netherlands IND/DEM

2

Denmark IND/DEM

1

Sweden IND/DEM

2

Czechia IND/DEM

Against (1)

1

History

(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)

committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Environment, Public Health and Food Safety
committee
ENVI
rapporteur
name: HEGYI Gyula date: 2005-11-29T00:00:00 group: Socialist Group in the European Parliament abbr: PSE
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Environment, Public Health and Food Safety
committee
ENVI
date
2005-11-29T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: HEGYI Gyula group: Socialist Group in the European Parliament abbr: PSE
committees/2
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Transport and Tourism
committee
TRAN
rapporteur
name: Ó NEACHTAIN Seán date: 2006-01-24T00:00:00 group: Union for Europe of the Nations abbr: UEN
committees/2
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Transport and Tourism
committee
TRAN
date
2006-01-24T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: Ó NEACHTAIN Seán group: Union for Europe of the Nations abbr: UEN
committees/3
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Regional Development
committee
REGI
rapporteur
name: KALLENBACH Gisela date: 2006-02-22T00:00:00 group: Greens/European Free Alliance abbr: Verts/ALE
committees/3
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Regional Development
committee
REGI
date
2006-02-22T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: KALLENBACH Gisela group: Greens/European Free Alliance abbr: Verts/ALE
docs/0/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/registre/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/sec/2006/0016/COM_SEC(2006)0016_EN.pdf
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/sec/2006/0016/COM_SEC(2006)0016_EN.pdf
docs/5/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A6-2006-233&language=EN
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-6-2006-0233_EN.html
docs/6/body
EC
docs/7/body
EC
events/0/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/registre/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/com/2005/0718/COM_COM(2005)0718_EN.pdf
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/com/2005/0718/COM_COM(2005)0718_EN.pdf
events/4/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A6-2006-233&language=EN
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-6-2006-0233_EN.html
events/7/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P6-TA-2006-367
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-6-2006-0367_EN.html
activities
  • date: 2006-01-11T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/registre/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/com/2005/0718/COM_COM(2005)0718_EN.pdf title: COM(2005)0718 type: Non-legislative basic document published celexid: CELEX:52005DC0718:EN body: EC commission: DG: url: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/environment/ title: Environment Commissioner: DIMAS Stavros type: Non-legislative basic document published
  • date: 2006-03-16T00:00:00 body: EP type: Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading committees: body: EP responsible: True committee: ENVI date: 2005-11-29T00:00:00 committee_full: Environment, Public Health and Food Safety rapporteur: group: PSE name: HEGYI Gyula body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Industry, Research and Energy committee: ITRE body: EP responsible: False committee: REGI date: 2006-02-22T00:00:00 committee_full: Regional Development rapporteur: group: Verts/ALE name: KALLENBACH Gisela body: EP responsible: False committee: TRAN date: 2006-01-24T00:00:00 committee_full: Transport and Tourism rapporteur: group: UEN name: Ó NEACHTAIN Seán
  • date: 2006-06-21T00:00:00 body: EP committees: body: EP responsible: True committee: ENVI date: 2005-11-29T00:00:00 committee_full: Environment, Public Health and Food Safety rapporteur: group: PSE name: HEGYI Gyula body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Industry, Research and Energy committee: ITRE body: EP responsible: False committee: REGI date: 2006-02-22T00:00:00 committee_full: Regional Development rapporteur: group: Verts/ALE name: KALLENBACH Gisela body: EP responsible: False committee: TRAN date: 2006-01-24T00:00:00 committee_full: Transport and Tourism rapporteur: group: UEN name: Ó NEACHTAIN Seán type: Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
  • body: CSL meeting_id: 2740 council: Environment date: 2006-06-27T00:00:00 type: Council Meeting
  • date: 2006-06-30T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A6-2006-233&language=EN type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading title: A6-0233/2006 body: EP type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
  • date: 2006-09-25T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20060925&type=CRE type: Debate in Parliament title: Debate in Parliament body: EP type: Debate in Parliament
  • date: 2006-09-26T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/sda.do?id=11342&l=en type: Results of vote in Parliament title: Results of vote in Parliament url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P6-TA-2006-367 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading title: T6-0367/2006 body: EP type: Results of vote in Parliament
commission
  • body: EC dg: Environment commissioner: DIMAS Stavros
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Environment, Public Health and Food Safety
committee
ENVI
date
2005-11-29T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: HEGYI Gyula group: Socialist Group in the European Parliament abbr: PSE
committees/0
body
EP
responsible
True
committee
ENVI
date
2005-11-29T00:00:00
committee_full
Environment, Public Health and Food Safety
rapporteur
group: PSE name: HEGYI Gyula
committees/1
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Industry, Research and Energy
committee
ITRE
opinion
False
committees/1
body
EP
responsible
False
committee_full
Industry, Research and Energy
committee
ITRE
committees/2
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Transport and Tourism
committee
TRAN
date
2006-01-24T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: Ó NEACHTAIN Seán group: Union for Europe of the Nations abbr: UEN
committees/2
body
EP
responsible
False
committee
REGI
date
2006-02-22T00:00:00
committee_full
Regional Development
rapporteur
group: Verts/ALE name: KALLENBACH Gisela
committees/3
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Regional Development
committee
REGI
date
2006-02-22T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: KALLENBACH Gisela group: Greens/European Free Alliance abbr: Verts/ALE
committees/3
body
EP
responsible
False
committee
TRAN
date
2006-01-24T00:00:00
committee_full
Transport and Tourism
rapporteur
group: UEN name: Ó NEACHTAIN Seán
council
  • body: CSL type: Council Meeting council: Environment meeting_id: 2740 url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=2740*&MEET_DATE=27/06/2006 date: 2006-06-27T00:00:00
docs
  • date: 2006-01-11T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/registre/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/sec/2006/0016/COM_SEC(2006)0016_EN.pdf title: SEC(2006)0016 url: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=EN&type_doc=SECfinal&an_doc=2006&nu_doc=16 title: EUR-Lex summary: COMMISSION’S IMPACT ASSESSMENT For further information regarding the context of this issue, please refer to the summary of the Commission’s Communication to the Council and the European Parliament on a Thematic Strategy on the Urban Environment – COM(2005)0718. 1- POLICY OPTIONS AND IMPACTS 1.1- Option 1: Baseline scenario: The situation without the Thematic Strategy on the Urban Environment. The likely evolution of the challenges facing urban areas in the absence of the Urban Environment Strategy is assessed. The impacts of existing policies and new initiatives such as those announced in other Thematic Strategies are taken into account. 1.2- Option 2: Scenario for the Thematic Strategy: A package of initiatives to facilitate the use of best practice techniques in the integrated management of the environment. The Thematic Strategy will comprise a package of initiatives to support Member States and local authorities in adopting integrated approaches to the management of the urban environment and ultimately improve the environmental performance of urban areas. CONCLUSION : The preferred approach identified through the Impact Assessment is to encourage the widespread adoption of known and proven techniques by facilitating the exchange of good practice and information, providing guidance on key issues and making available opportunities for Commission support for specific projects and activities. The initiatives proposed contain a high degree of flexibility to reflect the diversity of urban areas across Europe. IMPACT Environmental: ▪ Environmental management plans bring benefits in better administrative functioning (decisions with large environmental impacts may be avoided) and in issues such as recycling, green purchasing, improvements to green space and nature conservation. Benefits in areas such as air quality and noise exposure are generally considered to be ‘small’ in scale. Benefits of other measures are likely to be positive and deliver improvements in the quality of the urban environment for instance through facilitating the implementation of the existing legislation. ▪ The scale of benefits from sustainable urban transport plans differs according to a variety of factors. Large benefits are reported for the management of urban transport issues and for issues such as safety and use of public transport. Introducing transport plans brings benefits in addition to measures adopted under air quality legislation since they achieve a wider range of benefits than improving air quality alone. ▪ The measures considered in the Scenario for the Strategy that are obligatory (i.e. the possible Directives) would result in wider use of these management techniques since all large European cities that do not have environmental management plans, sustainable urban transport plans and management systems would be required to adopt them. This would result in between 109-378 new environmental management plans, between 205-297 sustainable urban transport plans and between 310-408 new management systems. Economic: ▪ The voluntary measures in the Scenario for the Strategy do not impose additional costs. The likely costs that would be incurred should an authority decide to implement the guidance are reasonable and better planning can lead to better use of existing resources with only a marginal increase in costs. Other economic impacts relate to the improved attractiveness of the urban area and its ability to attract employment and investment. Whilst this cannot be quantified, it is a recognised impact. ▪ The measures for obligations to establish environmental management plans, sustainable urban transport plans and management systems would give rise to clear costs to public authorities. It is not expected that the obligations would give rise to direct costs to business or industry. ▪ Some of the measures that may be included in the plans may give rise to costs for business (e.g. road pricing) but since the obligations would not prescribe which measures have to be set out in the plans, these costs are not directly attributable to the possible imposition of the obligations. The objective is to influence the way that existing and future funds are spent, rather than provide new resources for new investment in urban environment measures. Social: The measures relating to the guidance on management plans and systems could create jobs. Responses to the Commission’s survey reveal that: ▪ 40% of local authorities employed additional staff to help establish and operate the environmental management system, ▪ 45% employed additional staff to develop the environmental management plan, and ▪ 55% of authorities employed additional staff to develop the sustainable urban transport plan. There may be some double counting in the percentages for the environmental management plan and the environmental management system. Many local authorities have also used external experts in establishing their plans and systems. Measures relating to obligations would be more likely to create jobs. One of the objectives of the sustainable urban transport plan would be to provide better access to shops and services for those without private transport. This is reported as a ‘small’ benefit. Improvements in the energy performance of buildings or the quality of the urban environment would bring positive impacts, particularly for the poorer and disadvantaged groups who suffer most from these issues. To the degree that the Scenario for the Strategy brings additional benefits to existing policies (such as air quality and exposure to noise), it will also deliver positive impacts on human health. However, the impact on human health and safety cannot be quantified. 2- FOLLOW-UP To monitor the effectiveness of this Strategy, up-to-date, accessible urban data are needed. The Commission, with the help of the EEA, and in close cooperation with the Member States, will work to improve European data on urban environment issues without increasing the burden for national, regional or local authorities, in order to evaluate the environmental performance of European urban areas over time. This will be done in the context of INSPIRE (Infrastructure for Spatial Information in Europe) and a link with the GEO and GMES initiatives. The Commission will undertake a further Urban Audit in 2006 and publish a report in 2006 based on indicators describing the living conditions in a number of EU cities, covering economic, social and environmental aspects. To ensure that the views of all urban environment stakeholders are collected and that the process is transparent, a consultation exercise will be organised in 2009 as part of a review of the 6 th Environment Action Programme in 2010. type: Document attached to the procedure body: EC
  • date: 2006-04-05T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE371.854 title: PE371.854 type: Committee draft report body: EP
  • date: 2006-04-24T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE370.280&secondRef=03 title: PE370.280 committee: TRAN type: Committee opinion body: EP
  • date: 2006-05-17T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE372.197 title: PE372.197 type: Amendments tabled in committee body: EP
  • date: 2006-06-01T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE371.922&secondRef=02 title: PE371.922 committee: REGI type: Committee opinion body: EP
  • date: 2006-06-30T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A6-2006-233&language=EN title: A6-0233/2006 type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading body: EP
  • date: 2006-10-19T00:00:00 docs: url: /oeil/spdoc.do?i=11342&j=1&l=en title: SP(2006)4772 type: Commission response to text adopted in plenary
  • date: 2006-12-13T00:00:00 docs: url: /oeil/spdoc.do?i=11342&j=0&l=en title: SP(2006)5076-2 type: Commission response to text adopted in plenary
events
  • date: 2006-01-11T00:00:00 type: Non-legislative basic document published body: EC docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/registre/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/com/2005/0718/COM_COM(2005)0718_EN.pdf title: COM(2005)0718 url: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=EN&type_doc=COMfinal&an_doc=2005&nu_doc=718 title: EUR-Lex summary: PURPOSE : to promote a thematic strategy on the urban environment. CONTEXT : urban areas play an important role in delivering the objectives of the EU Sustainable Development Strategy. In urban areas the environmental, economic and social dimensions meet most strongly. Cities are where many environmental problems are concentrated, but they are also the economic drivers, the places where business is done and investments are made. Four out of five European citizens live in urban areas, and their quality of life is directly influenced by the state of the urban environment. A high quality urban environment also contributes to the priority of the renewed Lisbon Strategy to make Europe a more attractive place to work and invest. CONTENT : the measures offered under this Strategy aim to contribute to a better implementation of existing EU environment policies and legislation at the local level by supporting and encouraging local authorities to adopt a more integrated approach to urban management and by inviting Member States to support this process and exploit the opportunities offered at EU level. If implemented at all levels, the Strategy will ultimately contribute to improve the quality of the urban environment, making cities more attractive and healthier places to live, work and invest in, and reduce the adverse environmental impact of cities on the wider environment, for instance as regards climate change. The integrated approach to environmental management at the local level and to transport in particular, based on effective consultation of all stakeholders, is key to successful implementation of environment legislation and to achieve long lasting improvements in environmental quality and performance. There is a need to support local authorities in adopting these management techniques. In this context, the Commission will : - provide technical guidance in 2006 on integrated environmental management, drawing on experiences and giving good practice examples. Reference will be made to the most relevant EU environmental legislation e.g. air, noise, water, waste and energy efficiency directives; - provide technical guidance in 2006 on the main aspects of transport plans based on the recommendations of the 2004 Expert Working Group and give best practice examples; - offer support for the exchange of good practice and for demonstration projects on urban issues for local and regional authorities through these instruments. Member States, regional and local authorities are encouraged to exploit these opportunities; - evaluate the pilot (end 2006) and consider whether it can be used as a building block for a “European framework programme for the exchange of experience on urban development” under the proposed Cohesion Policy 2007-2013; - assess the feasibility of establishing a thematic portal for local authorities; - use the new LIFE+ Regulation and other instruments to support capacity building for local and regional authorities on urban management issues, and it encourages Member States to initiate such activities; - encourage Member States to exploit these opportunities to address the problems facing their urban areas and give the National Strategic Reference Frameworks an appropriate urban focus; - offer support for further urban research and will actively involve local authorities and endeavour to make material developed for them available in many languages to facilitate use at the local level. The Commission states that this strategy is cross-cutting, covering many environmental media and issues. It will contribute to the implementation of the priorities of the 6th EAP and other environmental policies, including the other Thematic Strategies. Different environment policies (air quality, noise etc) ask that abatement plans be drawn up. By placing these plans in the context of a local integrated framework as proposed in this strategy, synergies between many policy areas can be developed, giving improved results, both for the environment and for the overall quality of life in the urban area.
  • date: 2006-03-16T00:00:00 type: Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading body: EP
  • date: 2006-06-21T00:00:00 type: Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading body: EP summary: The committee adopted the own-initiative report drawn up by Gyula HEGYI (PES, HU) in response to the Commission communication on the Thematic Strategy on the Urban Environment (TSUE). Although MEPs welcomed the Commission's initiative, they nevertheless argued that it did not go far enough towards achieving the goals set in the 6th Environmental Action Programme and regretted that the Commission had not proposed any legally binding measures and deadlines. They also said that the TSUE did not attempt "to balance European policy between urban and rural areas, or between centrally located towns and cities and those in outlying areas". The report stressed that a Sustainable Urban Management Plan (SUMP) and a Sustainable Urban Transport Plan (SUTP) should be required by Community law for all urban areas with over 100 000 inhabitants. Such a law should include clear deadlines and binding targets at local and European level, as voluntary measures had so far proven ineffective. The committee said that SUMPs should include waste management plans, noise maps and action plans, local air pollution plans and local environmental plans. Citizens, NGOs, business organisations and other stakeholders should be involved in the preparation of the SUMPs, which should be made available to the public. The report also suggested inter alia that more attention be paid "to preventing and removing dirt, litter, graffiti, animals' excrement and excessive noise from domestic and vehicular music systems". SUTPs should promote non-motorised transport modes such as cycling and walking, promote public transport and tackle growing individual car use, through parking restrictions and congestion charges. The report called for more use of environment-friendly modes of transport and technologies, such as bio-fuels and hybrid car technologies. It also proposes a 5% shift in passenger kilometres from individual transport/cars to sustainable means such as public transport and cycling, within the period 2002-2012. The committee reminded Member States of their responsibility to take into acount the most vulnerable transport users in the design of cities, in line with the aim of reducing road deaths by 50% by 2010 as set out in the White Paper on European Transport Policy. Moreover, it recalled that air pollution was a major cause of health problems in the EU and therefore stressed that cities with high air pollution should consider introducing congestion charges and establishing low emission zones. Lastly, the report regretted the lack of any specific action in the field of sustainable urban construction, even though this was identified as one of the four focus areas of the TSUE, and stressed the importance of increasing the environmental performance of buildings through energy- and water- efficient house design.
  • date: 2006-06-27T00:00:00 type: Resolution/conclusions adopted by Council body: CSL summary: The Council adopted conclusions on urban environment. Firstly, it welcomes the Commission's communication on the Thematic Strategy on the Urban Environment, in particular its focus on integrated environmental management and sustainable transport, as a valuable contribution towards tackling the environmental challenges that still persist today in urban areas, such as poor air quality, high volumes of traffic and congestion, ambient noise, poor building environment, urban sprawl and the loss of green areas and of biodiversity, waste and waste water. It notes that the policies and measures in the Thematic Strategy on the Urban Environment are focusing on principles, guidance, support and facilitation for Member States and their cities to improve their urban environment. Secondly, calls on Member States to strengthen their endeavours to enable cities, by their policies, to achieve high urban environmental and health quality and to consider the possibilities of National Strategic Reference Frameworks (linked to Cohesion Policy) for covering urban environment issues as well as opportunities in the context of the LIFE+ Regulation and funds. It equally recognises the relevance of the 7th FPRD, as well as the importance of promoting eco-innovation through rapid implementation of the ETAP. The Commission is encouraged to give guidance on how Member States can use these funds to integrate urban environment into their national plans including i.a. innovative and flexible mechanisms for the funding of urban renovation. It is also invited to provide support and impetus for public participation, in particular by actively facilitating and promoting Local Agenda 21 and the Aalborg Commitments. The Council welcomes the fact that the Commission will come forward with guidelines on sustainable transport plans including environmental objectives, measures and instruments for environmentally friendly and sustainable urban transport as well as examples of good practice. It recommends that Member States and cities make use of these guidelines in their urban transport policies and ensure that sustainable urban transport plans include environmental objectives and measures to improve and promote urban mobility management, public transport, cycling and walking, alternative fuels (e.g. biogas) and propulsion systems, ultra low emission vehicles and carsharing, as well as intermodal city freight logistics. The Council invites the Commission to consider further activities to develop and promote guidance and tools to improve the quality of the urban environment e.g. by focusing namely on sustainable urban design, planning and construction as well as water issues. Member States and cities are called upon to implement and facilitate the Thematic Strategy on the Urban Environment and its proposed areas for action, in particular the environmental management and sustainable transport plans. The Council encourages the establishment of national focal points on urban environment issues (e.g. European Urban Knowledge Network) and the collection of urban environment data and a core-set of indicators, e.g. in the context of 'Urban Audit', to enable progress and the environmental performance of European urban areas to be monitored. The Commission is invited to assess the results of the implementation of the TS and - if appropriate -to propose a revised strategy by 2010. Lastly, it recommends that synergies and cooperations with international activities in the field of the urban environment like the UNECE WHO Transport Health Environment Pan European Programme THE PEP, the WHO CEHAPE and other relevant initiatives as well as city networks should be aimed at.
  • date: 2006-06-30T00:00:00 type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A6-2006-233&language=EN title: A6-0233/2006
  • date: 2006-09-25T00:00:00 type: Debate in Parliament body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20060925&type=CRE title: Debate in Parliament
  • date: 2006-09-26T00:00:00 type: Results of vote in Parliament body: EP docs: url: https://oeil.secure.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/sda.do?id=11342&l=en title: Results of vote in Parliament
  • date: 2006-09-26T00:00:00 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P6-TA-2006-367 title: T6-0367/2006 summary: The European Parliament adopted a resolution based on the own-initiative report drafted by Gyula HEGYI (PES, HU) in response to the Commission communication on the Thematic Strategy on the Urban Environment (TSUE). The resolution was adopted by 448 votes in favour to 49 against with 110 abstentions. (Please see the summary of 21/06/2006.)
  • date: 2006-09-26T00:00:00 type: End of procedure in Parliament body: EP
links
other
  • body: EC dg: url: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/environment/ title: Environment commissioner: DIMAS Stavros
procedure/dossier_of_the_committee
Old
ENVI/6/33973
New
  • ENVI/6/33973
procedure/legal_basis/0
Rules of Procedure EP 52
procedure/legal_basis/0
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 052
procedure/subject
Old
  • 3.70.20 Sustainable development
  • 4.70.04 Urban policy, town and country planning
New
3.70.20
Sustainable development
4.70.04
Urban policy, cities, town and country planning
procedure/subject/1
Old
4.70.04 Town and country planning
New
4.70.04 Urban policy, town and country planning
activities
  • date: 2006-01-11T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/registre/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/com/2005/0718/COM_COM(2005)0718_EN.pdf celexid: CELEX:52005DC0718:EN type: Non-legislative basic document published title: COM(2005)0718 type: Non-legislative basic document published body: EC commission: DG: url: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/environment/ title: Environment Commissioner: DIMAS Stavros
  • date: 2006-03-16T00:00:00 body: EP type: Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading committees: body: EP responsible: True committee: ENVI date: 2005-11-29T00:00:00 committee_full: Environment, Public Health and Food Safety rapporteur: group: PSE name: HEGYI Gyula body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Industry, Research and Energy committee: ITRE body: EP responsible: False committee: REGI date: 2006-02-22T00:00:00 committee_full: Regional Development rapporteur: group: Verts/ALE name: KALLENBACH Gisela body: EP responsible: False committee: TRAN date: 2006-01-24T00:00:00 committee_full: Transport and Tourism rapporteur: group: UEN name: Ó NEACHTAIN Seán
  • date: 2006-06-21T00:00:00 body: EP committees: body: EP responsible: True committee: ENVI date: 2005-11-29T00:00:00 committee_full: Environment, Public Health and Food Safety rapporteur: group: PSE name: HEGYI Gyula body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Industry, Research and Energy committee: ITRE body: EP responsible: False committee: REGI date: 2006-02-22T00:00:00 committee_full: Regional Development rapporteur: group: Verts/ALE name: KALLENBACH Gisela body: EP responsible: False committee: TRAN date: 2006-01-24T00:00:00 committee_full: Transport and Tourism rapporteur: group: UEN name: Ó NEACHTAIN Seán type: Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
  • body: CSL meeting_id: 2740 council: Environment date: 2006-06-27T00:00:00 type: Council Meeting
  • date: 2006-06-30T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A6-2006-233&language=EN type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading title: A6-0233/2006 body: EP type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
  • date: 2006-09-25T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20060925&type=CRE type: Debate in Parliament title: Debate in Parliament body: EP type: Debate in Parliament
  • date: 2006-09-26T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/sda.do?id=11342&l=en type: Results of vote in Parliament title: Results of vote in Parliament url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P6-TA-2006-367 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading title: T6-0367/2006 body: EP type: Results of vote in Parliament
committees
  • body: EP responsible: True committee: ENVI date: 2005-11-29T00:00:00 committee_full: Environment, Public Health and Food Safety rapporteur: group: PSE name: HEGYI Gyula
  • body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Industry, Research and Energy committee: ITRE
  • body: EP responsible: False committee: REGI date: 2006-02-22T00:00:00 committee_full: Regional Development rapporteur: group: Verts/ALE name: KALLENBACH Gisela
  • body: EP responsible: False committee: TRAN date: 2006-01-24T00:00:00 committee_full: Transport and Tourism rapporteur: group: UEN name: Ó NEACHTAIN Seán
links
other
  • body: EC dg: url: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/environment/ title: Environment commissioner: DIMAS Stavros
procedure
dossier_of_the_committee
ENVI/6/33973
reference
2006/2061(INI)
title
Thematic strategy on the urban environment
legal_basis
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 052
stage_reached
Procedure completed
subtype
Initiative
type
INI - Own-initiative procedure
subject