Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on 'Sustainable urban development in the European Union: a framework for action'
C 368/62 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 20. 12. 1999 Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on ‘Sustainable urban development in the European Union: a framework for action’ (1999/C 368/19) On 25 March 1999, the Economic and Social Committee decided, under Rule 23(3) of its Rules of Procedure, to draw up an opinion on ‘Sustainable urban development in the European Union: a framework for action. ’ The Section for Economic and Monetary Union and Economic and Social Cohesion, which was responsible for preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 29 September 1999. The rapporteur was Mr Vinay. At its 367th plenary session (meeting of 21 October 1999), the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 87 votes in favour with 1 abstention. 1. Introduction The Communication from the Commission on Sus- 1. 1. tainable urban development in the European Union: a frame- work for action comes in the wake of an intensive debate over recent years on the increasingly complex and important urban issues arising within the EU. The debate has been triggered by the many initiatives launched by various official bodies and further stimulated by the appearance of a number of key points closely tied in with the subject. line of An initial and significant 1. 2. thought on the question of a European urban policy emerged in the Com- mission’s 1990 Green Paper on the urban environment, while the expert group on the urban environment issued its Report on European sustainable cities in 1996. For its part, the Economic and Social Committee tackled the issue both under its opinion on Europa 2000 + in 1995 (1), and with a dedicated opinion in 1996 (2). 1. 2. 1. In the same year the Commission brought the urban issue to the direct attention of all the institutions with its Communication ‘Towards an urban agenda in the European Union’, which was received with great interest. The European Parliament (3), the Economic and Social Committee (4) and the Committee of the Regions welcomed the communication, calling on the Commission to develop its initiative further. 1. 3. The arguments of those advocating a European dimen- sion for urban policy were from the outset underpinned by (1) Opinion on Europe 2000+ — Cooperation for European terri- torial development (additional opinion), OJ C 133, 31. 5. 1995, p. 2, point 2. 6. (2) Opinion on the role of the European Union in urban matters, OJ C 30, 30. 1. 1997. (3) Resolution on the Commission communication ‘Towards an urban agenda in the European Union’ (COM(97) 197 — C4-235/ 97) A4-172/98. (4) Opinion on the Commission communication ‘Towards an urban agenda in the European Union’, OJ C 95, 30. 3. 1998. their views on the economic, social, political and cultural role which cities — historically, the basic building-blocks of the most urbanised continent in the world — continue to play. 1. 3. 1. Further developments, both socio-economic and institutional, have added to these reasons. Firstly, all the aspects and effects of economic and social trends, from economic growth to the growth of unemployment, the increase in the quality of life to the increase in social exclusion, are concen- trated — to the highest degree and all at the same time — in cities. Secondly, all EU policy initiatives have the greatest impact, in terms of either their direct effects or the way they are perceived and judged by the European public, in these same urban areas. 1. 4. Lastly, the challenge of sustainable development arises and must be taken up in cities, and must be tackled from both the environmental and social points of view. This means that as a result of both the inclusion of these matters in the Amsterdam Treaty and the EU’s environmental commitments towards the United Nations under the Kyoto Convention, consistent lines of action should be devised, necessarily linked to a European urban policy framework. 2. The key elements of the Commission proposals 2. 1. The Commission emphasises that the development of integrated urban management strategies is essential in order to cope with clearly complex and inevitably interconnected problems and to maximise urban potential. These aims could be jeopardised by the continuation of traditional sectoral strategies and by excessive dispersal of powers and responsi- bilities among the various decision-making and administrative levels. 2. 1. 1. The essential precondition for integrated action is to identify priority objectives. The Commission’s proposal outlines four distinct but interdependent areas, and argues that each of the 24 proposed actions, divided into groups according 20. 12. 1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 368/63 to objective, may — and indeed, as part of an overall consistent approach, must — have a more or less immediate impact on the others. In one sense, listing the objectives under headings does also put the problems — all of them of considerable importance — covered by the framework for action into a kind of order. 2. 2. The first heading is strengthening economic prosperity and employment in towns and cities. As is pointed out above, the majority of EU citizens live in urban areas. It follows that many of the initiatives under the employment guidelines focus primarily on economic development in towns and cities. 2. 2. 1. Particular emphasis is placed on the option of introducing explicit reference to the urban dimension into Structural Fund programming. This is, in part, on account of the successful results with the Community initiative Urban. It is considered that the positive effects of this decision will include a quantitatively and qualitatively important impact on preparing and implementing integrated urban development actions, as well as improved coordination with Community action in the context of the trans-European networks. The development potential of many urban areas is prejudiced by their marginal position vis-à-vis the road and transport infrastructure system. 2. 3. social The second objective, promoting equality, inclusion and regeneration in urban areas, is explicitly tied in with efforts to strengthen Community policies to combat exclusion and discrimination, as well as security aspects, on the basis of the Amsterdam Treaty. These issues, which could be defined as relating to ‘social sustainability’ are brought into sharpest focus in urban areas. This means that the effectiveness of initiatives to counter them can be monitored all the faster and more clearly. Citing the new Objective 2, the Commission also mentions criteria to identify ‘urban areas in difficulty’. 2. 4. The third objective is the most concerned with ques- tions which have now come to the forefront worldwide: environmental and ecosystem protection. Protecting and improving the urban environment: towards local and global sustainability is crucial, not so much to the economic future as to the actual survival of towns and of the entire planet. Activities, patterns of behaviour and situations having a impact on air and water quality and on natural powerful ecological balances are clearly concentrated in urban areas. It is therefore also obvious that it is here that all possible initiatives to minimise such effects — which will have enor- mous implications for future generations — must be put into action. in the environmental impact of the means used, to introducing an eco-label and eco-management label for cities and towns. 2. 5. The last objective sets out to contribute to good urban governance and local empowerment. Better vertical integration of different levels of government and better horizontal inte- gration within and between various organisations, in addition to involvement of citizens and stakeholders in urban policies is seen as crucial. EU action is not intended in any way to infringe upon the principle of subsidiarity, but aims to help improve the links between the different levels and encourage the use of partnerships to deal with urban problems. 2. 5. 1. One action is directed towards awareness-raising, exchange of experience and capacity building for sustainable urban development, to be achieved by using and developing linked networks. Further actions aim to support innovative strategies, security and crime prevention and improved com- parative information on EU urban conditions. 3. General comments 3. 1. The Committee welcomes the Commission’s com- munication, particularly the way the framework for action revolves around four objectives which crystallise responses to the challenges immediately facing all urban structures in the EU, albeit to different degrees. They include employment, integration and social cohesion, the environment and sustain- able development, and efficient and participatory management. 3. 1. 1. An especially positive aspect is that determined steps are taken to define urban policy guidelines, demonstrated by the clear awareness that Union policy initiatives must involve a considered and careful assessment of the situation which will created by these guidelines in the urban territorial setting, which represents the basic fabric of European socio-economic organisation. The most prominent feature of the framework for 3. 1. 2. action is that it casts an integrated urban policy approach in practical terms, underpinned by identifying priority objectives and pursued by means of a range of interventions and instruments. These include the Structural Funds and can, if coordinated, be more broadly effective. The actions proposed range from enhanced urban- 2. 4. 1. oriented environmental legislation, through specific measures concerning waste disposal, changes in transport patterns and The Committee does however feel it should contribute 3. 2. to the Commission proposal with some comments on the document’s general approach. C 368/64 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 20. 12. 1999 3. 2. 1. The first and most immediate comment is that in drawing up the proposal, the Commission has had to remain within the bounds of what is politically and legally realistic. The document therefore focuses exclusively on the present aspects and issues of the operational field represented by urban centres. Although the appended document on ‘Challenges for European towns and cities’ seeks to make future projections, it labours under the same restriction. run-down urban areas with high levels of social marginalisa- tion. One action to combat social exclusion focuses on ‘second-chance schools’, but focus on this kind of continuous training, which can play an important part in allowing people to return to employment — or even better, not to lose it — is lacking. 3. 2. 2. Towns and cities, however, are in some ways compar- able to living organisms, made up of all those who live and work in them and subject to substantial — sometimes radical — change. What effects will the marked, and increasing, ageing of their populations have on the future of many major European cities? What influence will the increasing number of singles and lone parent families have on the demand for all kinds of services? Has the process of deindustrialisation run its course, or is it set to continue, and if so how far? Will teleworking, with all its implications for demand for mobility, become commonplace or will it remain at a minimal level? The document gives little or no room to these questions, which are far from exhaustive. 3. 2. 3. The actions proposed by the Commission refer more than once to the importance of promoting and maintaining a balanced and polycentric urban system. This view, however commendable, cannot be pursued through urban policies alone. The vertical and horizontal integration the Commission aims to encourage must be accompanied by ‘spatial’ integration between urban centres, smaller towns and rural areas within the same urban or geographical region. However, the EU does thought. not have the machinery to pursue this line of The European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP), while remaining within the limits of intergovernmental cooperation, currently represents the only framework within which the desired outcome can be sought. 3. 3. It is emphasised at several points that one of the essential elements in successfully tackling the employment problem is coordination of Member State investment policies. From this point of view, integrated action as proposed by the document is positive, but the jobs potential of the various initiatives should be made clearer. 3. 3. 3. The Commission dedicates a specific initiative to urban crime prevention. It is important to recognise that security has become a major concern in the minds of people living in large and small towns. Pilot projects are doubtless useful, but the ever-closer link between petty and organised crime demands that local initiatives be tied in with coordinated strategies. With the entry into force of the police and judicial cooperation title of the Treaty of Amsterdam, those strategies should from now on be coordinated to much greater effect. Special attention should be paid to the question of 3. 4. immigration, which is an issue of prime importance in European urban centres. Firstly, it augments population growth and often levels of unemployment and exclusion. Secondly, it raises the question of setting up appropriate infrastructures, such as places of worship, and how to devise spatial planning policies which prevent the creation or consolidation of ethnic enclaves in the urban fabric. 3. 4. 1. This provides an immediate and practical oppor- tunity to check the reality of the Amsterdam Treaty’s vigorous condemnation of any form of discrimination. 3. 4. 2. Action directed towards ‘urban areas in difficulty’ in terms of socio-economic marginalisation or serious environ- mental decline should clearly be granted priority status in urban renewal policies, but schemes for areas suffering urban exclusion, such as an outdated buildings stock of little architectural merit or infrastructure which is no longer efficient or adequate, should also be taken into consideration. The Committee (1) has already expressed the view that the resto- ration and modernisation of old buildings is very much in line with the concept of a sustainable building sector; it stems urban sprawl, stimulates employment and also enhances a town’s sense of identity. 3. 3. 1. Policies for social integration are becoming increas- ingly necessary on account of the growth of pockets of exclusion. In the overall urban context, however, social polarisation is occurring at an earlier stage, with the intermedi- ate layers of society shrinking in size and having an ever more precarious status. These factors should also be taken into account when tackling urban employment and economic issues. 3. 4. 3. Conservation of the cultural heritage should seek to do more than make urban centres more attractive, as indicated in the Commission document. As well as making a major contribution to historical and cultural identity, this heritage, whatever its size, offers considerable potential for generating wealth and jobs. What is lacking is a specific indication of actions designed to bring this about. 3. 3. 2. It should be remembered that long-term unemploy- ment is a powerful factor perpetuating the problems of very (1) Opinion on ‘Sustainable development in building and housing in Europe’, OJ C 355, 21. 11. 1997. 20. 12. 1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 368/65 3. 5. Economic and environmental sustainability is now an urgent problem of global proportions, and the most telling evidence is to be found in towns and cities. Sustainability is tightly bound up both with urban planning: mobility, transport and waste management, and with quality of life: noise and atmospheric pollution. The Committee therefore attaches particular importance to sustainable urban development, par- ticularly in its environmental aspect, and has discussed the subject on several occasions (1). The Commission proposal is to be welcomed, but more must be done to examine and highlight the potential benefits to employment of proactive environment policies (2). 3. 5. 1. Nevertheless, it remains important, particularly with regard to the environment, that economic sectors be made aware of their responsibility (3), and that citizens be well informed and supportive. This can be accelerated and sup- plemented by their participation when decisions are taken. 3. 6. There are essentially two sides to participation in the context of urban policies. Understood in terms of a partner- ship, it is a means of harnessing the contributions of a range of institutions, management and labour, and public, private and other economic operators to projects or actions. It is therefore valuable from either a narrowly organisational point of view, or in economic and social terms: it boosts the available resources and stimulates the flow of suggestions. 3. 6. 1. Participation by the general public as such is highly important for society and also offers the extra benefit of strengthening the feeling of ‘community’, which is increasingly fragmented in present day urban areas. economic, infrastructural and environmental problems. The CEEC and the developing countries of the Mediterranean region must be brought into the debate on sustainability and urban development. 4. The Structural Funds and Urban 4. 1. The Commission proposal mentions the Structural Funds reform (2000-2006), which specifies urban zones in difficulty as an area for intervention. The Committee has long expressed the view that use of the Funds in urban policy is crucial to dealing with social and economic crises. It therefore fully agrees that this need exists in the context of a properly integrated policy of urban intervention, geared towards sus- tainable development. However, in the same opinion, the Committee also called for a greater awareness of the weight and political role of cities — something which does not yet appear to have come about (4). 4. 1. 1. In its opinion on the new Structural Funds regulation, and more specifically on how it tied in with the problems of urban areas, the Committee welcomed the draft regulation’s strengthening of partnership but drew attention to the need for the principle of partnership to be properly observed at all levels of Structural Fund actions, seeing this as a key element in ensuring that the ‘bottom-up’ approach central to the success of the actions undertaken is retained (5). The European Parliament has also spoken out in favour of greater emphasis on partnership in connection with reform of the Structural Funds (6). 3. 6. 2. The Committee notes that the proposal ought to place greater emphasis on participation and partnership, which are more evident in declarations of intent than in the specific action in this area. The role of services and SMEs in the partnership is not adequately highlighted. Furthermore, no attention is given to the way in which a lack of administrative transparency distances the public and fans mistrust. These observations also remain highly pertinent to 4. 1. 2. the present proposal, with the added comment that while it is important for urban issues to form an integral part of the Funds’ reform, it is essential for actions for towns and cities to be built into other programmes and, most of all, integrated into the employment question and related policies. 3. 7. Issues specifically relating to urban policy should be discussed in greater depth with the countries applying for EU membership, as most of them are experiencing serious social, The Committee (4) is particularly pleased that the Urban 4. 2. project was not be shelved, given both its political value and the integrated view it took of the problems of urban areas in difficulty, and therefore supports the decision of the EU Council to continue the Urban initiative in parallel with Interreg, Equal and Leader. (1) Opinion on the ‘Proposal for a Council Directive relating to limit values for sulphur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter and lead in ambient air’ OJ C 214, 10. 7. 1998; Opinion on the ‘Proposal for a Council Directive relating to limit values for benzene and carbon monoxide in ambient air’ OJ C 235, 27. 7. 1998. (2) Cf. Opinion on the ‘Communication from the Commission on environment and employment’ (building a sustainable Europe), OJ C 235, 27. 7. 1998. (3) Cf. Opinion on the ‘Proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) allowing voluntary participation by organisations in a Community eco-management and audit scheme’, OJ C 209, 22. 7. 1999. (4) Opinion on the Commission communication ‘Towards an urban agenda in the European Union’, OJ C 95, 30. 3. 1998. (5) Opinion on the Proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds, OJ C 407, 28. 12. 1998. (6) Resolution on the proposal for a Council Regulation laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds [COM(1998) 131 — C4-0285/98 — 98/0090 (AVC)]. C 368/66 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 20. 12. 1999 4. 2. 1. While awaiting the new regulation, it is hoped that the potential which Urban has succeeded in developing will not be weakened, either operationally or financially. 4. 2. 2. It is precisely because of this wealth of experience with Urban that the importance of partnership in the use of the Structural Funds must be underlined: Urban has involved not only local authorities but also the social partners, associ- ations and individual citizens in the way each of the initiatives is organised and their aims. 4. 3. In connection with the identification of areas for Structural Funds intervention, boosting Eurostat seems increas- ingly advisable. Reliable figures are currently available for unemployment and specific industrial situations in the various national territories, but not broken down by service. Neither are there proper statistics for urban areas: at most, some incomplete figures have been compiled on a regional basis. Eurostat data should be supplemented with more detailed territorial breakdowns and definitions, partly in order to assess the possibility of broadening the range of statistics available for judging the admissibility of interventions. 5. Urban policy and territorial integration 5. 1. The Committee has in the past strongly argued that EU-level urban policy should be firmly based on an overall vision of the European urban system, a wider scheme to bring development and balance, a strategy for combining objectives of economic excellence with objectives of social equity, a continuing focus on social cohesion in cities and regions, an ability to combine competition and cooperation, and a particular awareness of the need to link the outlook for development — in which cities and towns are key players — with the quality and style of life of European citizens (1). Putting aside the positive actions it identifies, the 5. 2. Commission proposal nevertheless lacks a forward view beyond the immediate future. However, this derives from an obvious problem: no long-term urban policy can be devised without the framework of an overall territorial policy, which in turn must be more than just the sum of the policies of all the individual EU countries. The ESDP was created with the specific aim of 5. 2. 1. drawing up such an overall policy. It is significant that it has held two seminars (Lille and Salamanca) and a concluding discussion, at the Brussels Forum of 2 and 3 February 1999, on the European urban system, with special attention focusing on polycentric urban development and renewed partnership between town and country. The final ESDP text, to which these discussions contributed, was adopted at the informal Council of Ministers meeting in Potsdam in May 1999 and the related action plan was approved by the following Council meeting recently held in Tampere. In an earlier opinion (2), the Committee welcomed 5. 2. 2. the initiative, but drew attention to a number of limitations upon the organisation and efficacy of the ESDP, which remains an initiative at intergovernmental level and as such, is not easy to tie in effectively with the Community level. An awareness of this need is however apparent in 5. 2. 3. the ESDP action plan approved in Tampere, the overall structure of which is geared to stimulating and promoting closer links between land-use policies as a whole and approach- es to the development of urban, regional and rural systems. 5. 3. It is clear that many of the problems involved in urban sustainability arise — and must be resolved — within a broader scope than that of the narrow urban area. It is equally clear that in terms of immediate functions and spatial context, towns and cities are bound up with territorial units much larger than themselves. In terms of strategic functionality, from the socio- 5. 3. 1. economic and, in particular, the ecologically-friendly develop- ment and global competition points of view, European towns and cities are and must be seen as a network which needs an overall political vision, cooperation, information and balanced, harmonious development. 6. Comments, suggestions and thoughts on the future 6. 1. The Commission’s proposal brings together a number of hopes, proposals and initiatives of past years; but, first and foremost, it marks the start of a new process requiring resources and regular checks to ensure it achieves its full potential. 6. 1. 1. One of the top priorities is the establishment of uniform, inter-comparable indicators. This objective is among the specific initiatives written into the 5th framework pro- gramme for RTD. The aim is to arrive at common assessment criteria, based on a wide range of definite, agreed, indicators, to enable both comprehensive monitoring of individual urban conditions and a detailed evaluation of the results of action taken. The urban audit, a pilot project to compile and compare indicators, which currently covers 58 European cities, represents a valuable experiment in this area. (1) Opinion on the role of the European Union in urban matters, OJ (2) Opinion on the European Spatial Development Perspective C 30, 30. 1. 1997. (ESDP), in OJ C 407, 28. 12. 1998. 20. 12. 1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 368/67 6. 1. 2. The Committee welcomes the Commission’s bid to create a positive information network for good practice and current innovations in the area of urban policies in the EU. It would also be useful, however, to have access to analytical information on aspects that under certain circumstances can reduce the effectiveness or positive impact of the action engendered by the action plan. 6. 2. 1. 1. In this regard, the Committee would emphasise the importance of advanced public transport policies as both a decisive element in environmental protection and a means of backing up social integration policies. 6. 1. 3. This a matter for consideration by the expert group, in its periodical evaluation of the implementation of the framework for action. The Committee ought to be represented on this group, which is to be set up by the Commission. The group’s analyses and proposals could provide starting points for debate at the Urban Forum to be convened regularly by the Commission. 6. 2. 2. The EU, which was represented by the Commission and the Member States at ‘Habitat II’, has plainly demonstrated its awareness and concern for the global vision of sustainability. In the light of the framework for action, the exchange of information on research and innovation in an urban context and support for cooperation projects with third countries — especially developing countries — should therefore be stepped up, as part of the common drive to contain and reduce environmental damage and promote sustainable development. 6. 1. 4. The decision to set up an interdepartmental group to conduct on-going assessments of the progress of the action plan and the impact of Community policies on urban life is extremely timely and in line with previous Committee recommendations. A specific effort must be made to monitor the results of the incorporation of urban policies into the Structural Funds. The information network, the expert group’s find- 6. 1. 5. ings, the interdepartmental group’s results and, lastly, the study to be included by the Commission in the three-yearly report on economic and social cohesion, must all pay particular attention to the coherent development of all four of the objectives set out in the framework for action. 6. 2. It may well be that the implementation phase of the framework for action will unearth clear shortcomings or delays within the various institutional structures involved. The Commission openly recognises this risk. If this turns out to be the case, the Member States should be asked to adopt appropriate legislation to enable the strategy to be carried through with optimum results. 6. 2. 1. The Committee backs the decision to use taxation to support strategies for environmental sustainability and the reorganisation of demand for transport. It would however recall its earlier uncertainty (1) regarding the idea of pricing the use of town and city roads. A move of this kind, unless based on specific environmental quality-related criteria, would inevitably accentuate the very social and economic polarisation the framework for action is attempting to address. 6. 3. The Commission’s first evaluation of progress under the framework for action is scheduled for 2002. That could be the right time to set up a genuine action programme, based on the objectives already laid down. 6. 3. 1. A commonly quoted statistic in the field of urban policy is that 80 % of Europeans live in built-up areas, however, it is useful to contrast that figure with the fact that four-fifths of the area of the European Union is rural. Development, competitiveness, quality of life, service provision and a compat- ible balance in urban and rural areas can only be managed from within the context of global land-use management. The new Commission will inevitably have to look further into this issue. 6. 3. 2. It is to be hoped that by combining the intergovern- mental meetings on ESDP, the experience gained from the framework for action, the findings arising from the establish- ment of indicators and the experience that can be drawn from Life, Interreg and Urban, it will be possible to produce a white paper to set out urban and land-use strategies tailored to the EU’s future demographic, economic and social requirements. (1) Opinion on the Communication from the Commission — Developing the Citizens’ Network: Why good local and regional passenger transport is important, and how the European Com- mission is helping to bring it about, OJ C 138, 18. 5. 1999, p. 7. 6. 3. 3. World renowned urban planners and architects are predicting that the cities of the third millennium will sprawl and lack real centres. The theory is also that the world’s future will be dictated by 30-40 bloated metropolises. To the European mind and culture, this scenario speaks more of a nightmare than something to look forward to, and it represents a further challenge to the European Union to come up with C 368/68 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 20. 12. 1999 an alternative, competitive form of government, which is compatible with urban and regional development, while constantly concerned with the quality of life of all the Union’s inhabitants. This sums up the challenges that lie ahead. Brussels, 21 October 1999. The President of the Economic and Social Committee Beatrice RANGONI MACHIAVELLI Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on ‘Agri-environmental priorities for the multi-function agriculture of Agenda 2000’ (1999/C 368/20) On 28 January 1999, the Economic and Social Committee, acting in accordance with Rule 23(3) of its Rules of Procedure, decided to draw up an opinion on ‘Agri-environmental priorities for the multi-function agriculture of Agenda 2000’. The Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment, which was responsible for preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 28 September 1999. The rapporteur was Mr Colombo. At its 367th plenary session (meeting of 20 and 21 October 1999), the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 93 votes to one, with four abstentions. 1. Introduction 1. 1. On 24 and 25 March 1999, at its Berlin summit, the European Council launched what it described as an ‘equitable and worthwhile reform of the Common Agriculture Policy. The content of this reform will ensure that agriculture is multifunctional, sustainable, competitive and spread through- out Europe, including regions with specific problems, that it is capable for maintaining the countryside, conserving nature and making a key contribution to the vitality of rural life, and that it responds to consumer concerns and demands as regards food quality and safety, environmental protection and the safeguarding of animal welfare’. (1) The reform is based, first and foremost, on Council 1. 2. regulation (EEC) No 2078/92 (2), which was adopted as an accompanying measure the dissemination of environmentally compatible farming practices and to compensate farmers for environmental conservation work. to promote (1) Berlin European Council 24/25 March 1999, Presidency con- clusions. DN: DOC/99/1 of 26. 3. 1999. (2) This subsequently became Regulation No. 1257/1999, in OJ L 160, 26. 6. 1999. The regulation provides for the voluntary involvement of farmers by means of individual agreements offering financial incentives to meet specific technical and production-related requirements or develop certain natural resources within the farm. It has been the most important instrument to date in terms of integrating the environmental dimension into farming policies. 1. 2. 1. The most ground-breaking innovation introduced by the Agenda 2000 package and the new recently-adopted regulations concerns the establishment of a number of com- mon rules for direct payments to farmers under CAP support schemes. The Member States are to adopt the environmental measures they deem to be appropriate, in accordance with specific farmland and production conditions. These measures may include aid in exchange for agri-environmental commit- ments or direct payments subject to fulfilment of compulsory general and specific environmental requirements. The Member States will have to decide on appropriate penalties reflecting the ecological consequences of failure to meet official uniform standards for good farming practice, defined nationally follow- ing consultation with professional farming organisations. They can reduce or even cancel support scheme payments if specific requirements are not met