Find HEAL’s position papers from all of our activity areas here, we update this page regularly.
The papers are listed chronologically, but you can also search by subject area in the box on the right.
| Date | Title |
|---|---|
| 31/05/2013 | NGO comments to EU Commission on review of EU air policies |
| 08/05/2013 | Joint NGO comments on review of air policies |
| 03/05/2013 | CHEM Trust & HEAL’s view on the report of the ED Expert Advisory Group |
| 25/04/2013 | NGOs Position Paper on the EC proposal for a Medical Device Regulation COM(212) 542 HEAL, alongside several other NGOs led by Health Care Without Harm Europe (HCWH), have issued a joint position paper on the European Commission’s proposal for a revised law on Medical Devices. The proposal upgrades the existing Medical Devices Directive to a Regulation (applicable directly in all Member States without ‘national transposition’). The proposal is currently going through ‘co-decision’ in the European Parliament and Council. HEAL and fellow NGOs call for a Regulation that moves beyond the Directive’s labeling of hazardous chemicals used in medical devices to phase them out by specified deadlines, unless no safer alternatives are available. These hazardous chemicals include carcinogens, mutagens and reproductive toxicants, and Endocrine Disrupting chemicals. HEAL and other NGOs, as part of the EDC free coalition, call for the new regulation to establish the mechanisms to promote substitution of hazardous chemicals as quickly as possible in the European health care system. HEAL and the EDC free coalition partners are advocating the phase out of EDCs in a number of sectors, including medical devices, in line with the politically agreed bans on EDC pesticides and biocides, and the requirement for authorization of EDCs in the ‘industrial’ chemical sector. The EU is currently in the process of revising its EDC Strategy, and the call for a phase out of EDCs in Medical Devices is in line with the recognition in other sectors that EDCs are harmful to our health and the environment. |
| 11/04/2013 | HEAL position paper on the 7th EU Environment Action Programme |
| 02/04/2013 | Joint position paper: NGO recommendations: Encouraging 3rd Party participation in the REACH authorisation process |
| 05/03/2013 | Joint position paper: NGO priorities for the review of the Thematic Strategy on Air Pollution Sixty environmental, health and citizens’ NGOs from across the EU have come together to submit their input to the European Commission’s consultation on the review of the Thematic Strategy on Air Pollution. These NGOs including HEAL outline three priorities for which they would like to see legislative action in 2013. This joint position paper gathers the views of 60 environmental, health and citizens’ NGOs from across the EU which came together to submit their input to the European Commission’s consultation on the review of the Thematic Strategy on Air Pollution. These NGOs, including HEAL outline their three priorities for which they would like to see legislative action in 2013. Background Air pollution remains a major environmental and health problem across the EU. High concentrations of particulate matter (PM) and ozone are most harmful to human health. In urban areas, between 80 and 97% of the population is exposed to levels of pollution which are above the World Health Organisation’s (WHO) guidelines for health protection. This results in nearly half a million premature deaths in the EU each year, increased hospital admissions, extra expenditure on medication, and millions of lost working days. Air pollution has a major impact on Member States’ finances. In the year 2000 alone, the health damage from air pollution amounted to between €277 and €790 billion. This ‘only’ covers health costs, not all other damages, for instance to ecosystems, crops and materials. Air pollution damages nature and biodiversity with the deposition of acidifying and eutrophying substances still exceeding the critical loads of sensitive ecosystems over large areas in Europe. In January 2013, the WHO concluded that since 2005 considerable amounts of new scientific evidence has been published that more than confirms the WHO Air Quality Guidelines. Worse, new evidence shows that damaging effects can occur at levels lower than the 2005 Guidelines. The range of health impacts also appears to be much broader than previously thought, with new evidence of links with neurodevelopmental and cognitive function effects as well as with diabetes. Despite the fact that evidence concerning the harmful impacts of air pollution has continued to pile up, the recent history of the EU’s air pollution policy has been characterized by several delays and missed opportunities, including the introduction of time extensions into the Air Quality Directive in 2008 and repeated postponements of the revision of the National Emissions Ceilings (NEC) Directive. During the 2013 “Year of Air”, the EU has a chance to make things right. A package of proposals is expected to be published by the European Commission around September. Below, we highlight three priority actions which, combined, could put the EU on the right track towards the achievement of “levels of air quality that do not give rise to significant negative impacts on and risks to human health and the environment”. These are: 1. The adoption of ambitious emission reduction commitments in the revised NEC Directive, both for existing and ‘new’ pollutants; 2. The adoption of sector legislation to cut emissions from all major sources; 3. The enforcement and strengthening of ambient air quality limit values. We call upon the three EU institutions to come up with an agreement on all three priority actions and to start working towards this objective as early as possible in 2013. View the full position paper here For more information, please contact Anne Stauffer, anne@env-health.org. HEAL is one of the NGO representatives participating in the TSAP Review Stakeholder Expert Group, and within the HEAL's network, many members work on this issue. The following HEAL member organisations signed the joint letter: European Respiratory Society (ERS), European Federation of Allergy and Airways Diseases Patients Associations (EFA), The Cancer Prevention and Education Society, European Public Health Alliance (EPHA), International Network for Children’s Health, Environment and Safety (INCHES), Clean Air Action Group, Hungary, Comité pour le Développement Durable en Santé (C2DS), France, Eco Baby Foundation, Netherlands, Foundation Vivo Sano, Spain, Irish Doctors Environmental Association (IDEA), Ireland, and Réseau Environnement Santé (RES), France, Women in Europe for a Common Future (WECF) |
| 30/01/2013 | EU vehicle noise emission standards: health evidence and concerns EU Member States and the European Parliament are deliberating new EU standards for vehicle noise, the first update in 20 years. This overhaul is a not-to-be missed opportunity to improve the health and quality of life of Europe’s citizens, who are very concerned about the health impacts of noise and to set the path for more sustainable and healthy transport. This briefing by the Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL) aims to give an overview of the latest evidence on health effects of environmental noise, and what health groups are saying. The briefing on noise and health addresses: The science on noise and health A study by the World Health Organization: The burden of disease from environmental noise Linking road noise and strokes Linking road noise and heart attacks An assesment by TNO on noise pollution and fatal heart attacks Health experts demanding stricter emission standards A report of the British Medical Association on 'Healthy transportn healthy lives' Read the briefing on EU vehicle noise emission standards: health evidence and concerns |
| 15/01/2013 | HEAL response to consultation on Rio +20 |
| 21/12/2012 | HEAL submission to the consultation process on the EIB energy lending policy review |
| 23/11/2012 | Joint declaration: A Sound Investment to Reduce Vehicle Noise |
| 23/11/2012 | Joint statement: Calling EFSA to reform HEAL together with social and environmental organisations demand a radical overhaul of our food and environmental safety system and of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). We are calling for profound changes to ensure that EFSA fulfills its intended role of providing unbiased and up-to-date scientific advice to protect public health. There is an urgent need for greater independence, transparency and wider participation. HEAL together with social and environmental organisations demand a radical overhaul of our food and environmental safety system and of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). We are calling for profound changes to ensure that EFSA fulfills its intended role of providing unbiased and up-to-date scientific advice to protect public health. Below you will find a summary of our key demands to reform EFSA. 1. Prevent conflicts of interest EFSA's independence policy should effectively exclude people with conflicts of interest from its scientific panels, working groups, scientific committee and staff. Also, the management board should be free from people with industry interests. 2. EU laws should be overhauled so that products are tested by independent bodies, not industry 3. A code of scientific practice should be established for EFSA Currently it is often not clear how EFSA arrives at certain opinions and conclusions: for example, which scientific evidence it has taken into account and why. Scientifically rigorous, transparent and replicable methodologies for EFSA’s risk assessment work should be established. 4. Improve transparency and accountability EFSA must make accessible all data and information on which it bases risk assessments. All industry data, and EFSA’s decision-making processes on the data, must be available on the internet. Currently this is not the case for instance for pesticides. 5. Ensure wider participation EFSA must broaden the area of scientific expertise of its experts. EFSA experts should be paid out of public funds for their safety assessment work, but industry must cover the cost. A system must be established to include different types of input into the risk assessment, including societal, economic, ethical and environmental factors – though this should not be the task of EFSA. Signatories HEAL (Health and Environment Alliance), Friends of the Earth Europe, IFOAM EUGroup, Greenpeace European Unit, Pesticide Action Network Europe, Réseau Environnement Santé (RES), Sociedad Española de agricultura ecologica/Sociedad Española de agroecologia (SEAE), Corporate Europe Observatory, Earth Open Source, European Professional Beekeepers Association (EWIV), Food&Water Europe, ASEED Europe, BUND – Friends of the Earth Germany, Cancer Prevention and Education Society (CPES), Ecologistas en Accion, Fondation Sciences Citoyennes, GMWatch, Platform Aarde Boer Consument, Polish Forum of Organic Agriculture, Union Nationale de l'Apiculture Française, XminY solidarity fund Click here for more information. |
| 25/10/2012 | HEAL response to public consultation on EU noise policy |
| 20/08/2012 | HEAL response to public consultation on an EU strategy on adaptation to climate change |
| 30/05/2012 | HEAL reponse to public consultation on 7th EAP |
| 24/04/2012 | Joint position statement on shale gas, shale oil, coal bed methane and ‘fracking’ Shale gas is a dangerous experiment for the environment and human health. HEAL and other environment and health groups are calling on EU member states to suspend existing ‘fracking’ projects and ban new ones. Toxic chemicals used in fracking can contaminate groundwater, and subsequently drinking water, and fracking worsens our air quality. Groups call on Parliament to take a strong stand, and not to feed into the fossil fuel addiction. Brussels, 24 April, 2012 - We, a coalition of environment and health NGOs, have grave concerns about hydraulic fracturing (fracking) of shale gas, shale oil, and coal bed methane (CBM) in Europe. In particular, because of its impacts in the following areas: Climate: there is no scientific agreement that unconventional gas (such as shale and CBM) will have significantly lower total greenhouse gas emissions compared to other conventional fossil fuels (e.g. coal); Energy: development of shale gas and CBM will be at the expense of cheaper and safer policies to save energy and speed up the transition to renewable energy and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions; Water pollution: fracking could cause the contamination of surface and groundwater (including drinking water) with toxic chemicals used in fracking fluids,[1] and increasing the concentration in such water of methane and hazardous and radioactive materials that naturally occur in shale and coal; Water use: fracking involves pumping vast amounts of freshwater underground, much of which becomes irretrievable and / or contaminated; because vast quantities of fresh water are required in fracking operations, this will create significant social and environmental pressures at least at a local and regional level, and particularly in regions suffering from water scarcity; Air pollution: Unconventional gas drilling/operations produces soot and smog precursors,1particulate matter, methane and natural gas; Soil pollution: fracking carries the risk of leakages from polluted tailing ponds, wastewater and well blowouts; Land use: fracking disrupts the landscape and impacts upon rural and conservation areas; Noise: shale gas development generates noise pollution from equipment and transport that affects local residents, agricultural livestock and wildlife; Seismic activity: fracking increases the risks of earthquakes, which in turn increases the risk of damage to, and leakages from, gas wells; Cumulative and combined health and environmental impacts on communities and workers in the unconventional gas industry: for example, fracking causes additional exposure to toxic chemicals; Socio-economic impacts on communities: fracking can drive “boom and bust” cycles in local economies, undermining more sustainable agricultural and tourism economies. All of these effects have direct and indirect impacts on individual and public health. Many of these impacts are not only local, but can be felt regionally and even globally. Without a comprehensive scientific assessment of the impacts of fracking, an unconventional gas boom would be an enormous experiment on the environment and human health. We further note the following: 1. In order to limit global warming below 1,5 degrees Celsius, and thereby prevent dangerous climate change, fossil fuels must be phased out as quickly as possible. We believe renewable energy, energy savings and a significant reduction of CO2 emissions provide the only viable path to an environmentally sustainable and healthy future. Exploiting unconventional fossil fuels such as shale gas, shale oil and coal bed methane will increase total greenhouse gas emissions since further development of these fuels will increase the world’s dependency on fossil fuels and consequently slow down the large-scale deployment of clean energy renewables and energy savings. 2. Fracking is a high-risk activity that impacts human health and the wider environment. Fracking for unconventional fuels runs counter to the EU’s commitment to achieving a high level of environmental protection, as enshrined in Article 37 of the Charter on Fundamental Rights. Also article 35 of the Treaty commits the EU to ensuring a high level of human health protection in all of the Union’s policies and activities. The EU is tasked with developing environmental policies based on “the precautionary principle and on the principles that preventive action should be taken, that environmental damage should as a priority be rectified at source and that the polluter should pay” (Article 191, Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union). We therefore believe that the development of unconventional gas within the EU runs counter to EU Treaty obligations. 3. We believe the above mentioned principles are violated due to the absence of: A comprehensive and detailed analysis by an independent entity of the EU regulatory framework, as it applies to both exploration and exploitation phases; Sections in the Water Framework Directive or any relevant subsidiary laws (e.g. groundwater, EQS) covering fracking specificities; A scientific study of fracking-related air pollution and the long term health impacts; A scientific study of fracking-related water contamination and the long term health impacts (both from contamination by the naturally occurring hazardous and radioactive materials released in the fracking process, and from methane and other fracking fluid contaminants interacting with water disinfectant products, etc.); A full assessment of the capacity of all relevant water treatment plants, in all affected countries, to handle flow back waste water, and of water treatment costs, based on the polluter pays principle; A full assessment of the monitoring and enforcement capacities of Member State authorities across all the different impact areas; A scientific assessment of cross-border risks of water contamination and air pollution, with public input; A European Commission Green paper with full public participation of all relevant stakeholders, on the areas pertaining to the impacts of fracking activities that are not covered by existing EU regulations; A clear and binding set of European Best Available Technology Reference Standards (Brefs) for fracking operators. 4. To date, there is no consistent process in Europe that properly includes citizens and communities in decision-making related to shale gas, shale oil or coal bed methane. Free and fully-informed consent of local communities is not applied for most fracking projects prior to both exploration and exploitation phases, while they should be placed at the heart of the discussions. 5. Companies involved in fracking are not disclosing an exhaustive and detailed list of the chemicals used for each project, thus making it impossible to assess the environmental and health risks from exploitation and exploration (including full life cycle impacts). Currently the different deadlines and requirements in the REACH legislation mean that the information about chemicals is not automatically available to the public, and REACH controls on fracking may not come into force for a long time. Until all these problems are adequately addressed, we believe that no further shale gas, shale oil and coal bed methane activities should proceed. We call on all Member States to suspend all ongoing activities, to abrogate permits, and to place a ban on any new projects, whether exploration or exploitation. The Commission, as guardian of the treaties, should ensure timely and full legal compliance of Member States with all EU laws that pertain to shale gas, shale oil and coal bed methane, and bring forward legal proposals to cover those aspects not yet effectively addressed in EU law. We also call on the EU, its Member States and European Financial Institutions to cease providing financial or political support to shale gas, oil and coal bed methane development projects. Any financial and political assistance provided to shale gas projects in countries of the Global South should be redirected towards the production and promotion of renewable energy sources and energy savings, in line with the Millennium Development Goals. For more information please contact: Antoine Simon, Friends of the Earth Europe Tel: +32 (0) 2 893 10 18, Mob: +32 (0) 486 685 664, email: antoine.simon@foeeurope.org Geert De Cock, Food and Water Europe Tel: +32 (0) 2 893 10 45, Mob: +32 (0) 484 629 491, email: gdecock@fweurope.org Lisette van Vliet, Health and Environment Alliance Tel: +32 (0) 2 234 36 45, Mob: +32 (0) 484 614 528, email: lisette@env-health.org Tara Connolly, Greenpeace Tel: +32 (0) 2 274 19 21, Mob: +32 (0) 477 790 416, email: tara.connolly@greenpeace.org Notes: [1] Volatile Organic Compounds; Carcinogens, Mutagens, Toxic to Reproduction Chemicals; Persistent, Bioaccumulative and Toxic Chemicals; Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals. Supported by organisations active in: Europe, France, Germany, Poland, Bulgaria, USA, Spain, England, Wales, Northern Ireland, Ireland, South Africa, Austria, Bulgaria, Sweden, , the Netherlands, Australia, Germany USA, Central and Eastern Europe. The joint statement on shale gas, shale oil, coal bed methane and ‘fracking’ is also available in Bulgarian, French, Dutch and Spanish. |
| 13/04/2012 | HEAL response to consultation on chronic disease policy |
| 12/04/2012 | Joint Position Paper on new EU vehicles noise limits According to the World Health Organisation, traffic noise is the second biggest environmental problem affecting health after air pollution in the EU. The new proposal on vehicle noise is a major opportunity to reduce noise at source and prevent ill-health and disease. HEAL, T&E and EEB have identified a five step plan to make to strengthen the draft law. 12 April 2012 - Traffic noise is one of the most widespread environmental problems in the European Union. Noise interferes with people’s daily activities at school, at work, at home and during leisure time. It causes sleep disturbance, hearing damage, even cardiovascular disease; and hinders performance at work and children’s learning(i). Studies have revealed that fifty thousand deaths(ii) and approaching a quarter of a million cases of cardiovascular disease every year in Europe are linked to traffic noise. According to the World Health Organisation, traffic noise in Europe is the second biggest environmental threat to health after air pollution. Noise standards for road vehicles have not been updated for 20 years and had little impact on noise levels adjacent to roads. On 9 December 2011, the Commission published a proposal for a Regulation on the sound levels of motor vehicles. The proposal, if adopted by the Parliament and the Council, will replace the existing Vehicle Noise directive (70/157/EEC). Improved standards are long overdue but the current proposal fails to adequately deliver the health benefits and cost-savings that are possible by reducing noise from vehicles at the source. Health and Environment Alliance HEAL, Transport & Environment T&E and the European Environmental Bureau EEB have identified a five step plan to strengthen the Commission's Proposal in a position paper released in April 2012. View the full position paper here. View a summary of the position paper here. (i) WHO press release and report available at http://www.euro.who.int/en/what-we-... quantification-of-healthy-life-years-lost-in-europe (ii) CE Delft (2007) Traffic noise reduction in Europe: Health effects, social costs and technical and policy options to reduce road and rail traffic noise, den Boer, Schroten, Delft, August 2007. Available from: http://www.transportenvironment.org... |
| 02/04/2012 | Call on industry to provide substitution case stories Industry produces and uses tens of thousands of chemicals to make the products we use in our everyday lives. However, hundreds of those chemicals have been linked to serious adverse health effects such as cancer, developmental disorders and infertility. The good news is that many companies have been substituting hazardous chemicals with safer alternatives, but rarely those initiatives become available in the public domain for others to follow. This is why environmental, health, consumers and women’s organisations are calling on companies to provide substitution examples (or case stories) to SUBSPORT [1] showcasing their efforts in substituting hazardous chemicals with safer alternatives. Sharing of information and practical experiences is a fundamental step towards the phase out of hazardous substances. Access to this kind of information is invaluable for businesses, regulators and other stakeholders. Companies have a unique opportunity to show they are serious about their responsibility to provide safer products by eliminating hazardous chemicals. SUBSPORT, the Substitution Support Portal, is a free-of-charge internet portal that constitutes a state-of-the-art resource on safer alternatives. It is a source of not only information on alternative substances and technologies, but also of tools and guidance for substance evaluation and substitution management. Some important features of the portal available in several languages are: information on how to perform substitution step-by-step a database of hazardous substances that are legally or voluntarily restricted by authorities, companies, or proposed for restrictions by trade unions or NGOs a description of existing substitution tools to compare and assess alternative substances and technologies materials and training sessions on alternatives identification and assessment Case stories currently being provided by companies and other stakeholders are being evaluated and compiled into a database by the SUBSPORT partners and they will be happy to assist companies in preparing them. The database will be launched [2] in May in Helsinki. Case stories approved by May will be included in the launch, but as a living project, case stories after May are also welcome. In order for the case stories to be as useful as possible, companies need to provide information on which substance was phased-out, in which application and what is the alternative, including advantages and disadvantages of the substitution. Technical and cost aspects should also be covered briefly. We count on you to increase the public knowledge about safer alternatives by sharing your efforts. We would be very grateful to receive your case stories at info@subsport.eu or via http://www.subsport.eu/entry-form. Footnote: [1] SUBSPORT is run by Kooperationsstelle Hamburg (Germany), Grontmij (Denmark), ISTAS (Spain) and ChemSec (Sweden) and is financed by EU Life+, BAuA and Lebensministerium Austria. The four partners have the sole responsibility for the content of the website. [2] For more information about the launch, please visit www.subsport.eu |
| 03/02/2012 | Joint NGO comments on the analysis underpinning the review of EU air pollution policy review |
| 04/12/2011 | COP17: Durban Declaration on Climate and Health |
| 04/12/2011 | COP17 Durban: Protecting Public Health From Climate - A Global Call to Action |
| 03/11/2011 | HEAL response to the UN Rio+20 consultation As the leading European not-for-profit organisation addressing how the environment affects health in the European Union, HEAL welcomes the organisation of the UN conference on sustainable development and has very high hopes for the Rio+20 process. From 20-22 June 2012, governments, major groups and stakeholders from around the world with gather in Rio de Janeiro for the UN Rio+20 Conference on Sustainable Development. The conference will review the progress on achieving sustainable development 20 years after the 1992 Rio Conference and aims to reach concrete agreements among governments on key environmental challenges. The focus will be on “Green Economy in the Context of Sustainable Development and Poverty Eradication” and the “Institutional Framework for Sustainable Development”. HEAL has given input into the process for the compilation document highlighting that “health” needs to be central to the Rio+20 process and outcome, and gives 4 concrete ways forward on how to achieve this. You can also browse and read through other submissions at the following website: http://www.uncsd2012.org/rio20/inde... |
| 19/10/2011 | Joint NGO recommendations for EP ENVI Committee’s 2nd reading on the biocide regulation (COM (2009) 267) On 4 October an ENVI vote on the biocides was held (on the basis for negotiations with Council in trialogues). HEAL together with other groups sent a joint paper on recommendations for EP ENVI considerations for 2nd reading on the proposal of the placing of biocidal products on the market. View joint paper below. |
| 15/04/2011 | HEAL Position Paper: Preventing cancer through environmental policy change |
| 08/04/2011 | Final assessment of the 6th Community Environment Action Programme: Written Submission on stakeholder consultation Brussels, 8 April 2011 General Questions 1. The four priority areas of the 6th Environment Action Programme (6thEAP) are climate change, environment and health, nature and biodiversity, natural resources and waste. What positive environmental impacts can be identified in each of these four priority areas over the last 9 years (2002-2010)? In this written submission, HEAL will concentrate on the environment and health (E&H) aspects of the 6 EAP. HEAL is an alliance of over 65 organisations, and represents many partners in the health and medical community. As we have seen in the past five years, the health constituency is increasingly becoming vocal and supportive on stronger environmental laws to reduce pollution and ill health. They have issued strong position statements on the importance of E&H issues such as chemicals, climate and air quality to name a few. European wide patient groups, including those suffering from cancer or asthma, are also advocating for continued EU focus on E&H. Overall, having a clear focus on environment and health in the 6EAP, which was the case for the first time, has helped immensely that E&H issues, including the need to protect vulnerable groups, gained more prominence on the EU agenda and more political attention. In parallel, it has responded to a public concern across Europe on how environmental pollution is negatively impacting human health, by giving more visibility and providing concrete links between environmental policies and health status. We have witnesses this increased political attention and political momentum especially in the process leading up to the adoption of the 6EAP and the first years of its implementation. A dedicated priority area on E&H within the 6EAP created the impetus and tools to develop an EU SCALE strategy and the first ever EU Action Plan on Environment and Health, as well as contribute to the development a comprehensive children’s environment and health action plan in Europe in 2004 as part of the Budapest Ministerial commitments, the first of its kind in the world. The clear focus on E&H in the 6EAP was a driving force for the EU SCALE strategy and the EU Environment and Health Action Plan EHAP (2004-2010). The first EHAP added immense value in ensuring more targeted research on environmental impacts and health outcomes with numerous EU funded research projects on outdoor and indoor air pollution, environment and chronic diseases or noise. It also helped to develop the methodologies needed to understand and quantify health outcomes of environmental pollution, and helped to facilitate coordination among different DGs and within national environment and health ministries. Lastly, by providing an EU framework to discuss and develop environment and health activities, it helped the wide range of civil society groups (such as HEAL and its members) to increase education, awareness raising and advocacy on just how crucial environmental objectives were to human health outcomes, and provided a more integrated and holistic conception of sustainable development. This helped the general acceptance of the 6EAP, but more specifically the objective of “better understanding threats to environment and health”, as we have seen a stimulus to E&H research in FP7 overall (so far 256 million EUR EU research funding for E&H under FP7) which is adding to our understanding of the issues and the impacts on citizens. Thus the 6 EAP with its clear focus on E&H has helped immensely on driving the policy agenda forward, and having both the 6EAP and EHAP has provided for important synergies for environment and health research and political action. Although recently the general shift has been towards EU economic and budget policies by EU decision makers, a recent Eurobarometer from 2010 shows that European citizens remain as concerned as ever about environment and health issues and EU action. Moreover, an increasing solid body of environmental health science is highlighting that challenges remain in the way we regulate pollution, and how early life exposure can increase the risk of the most debilitating diseases later in life such as cancer, Parkinsons disease and even obesity. Fifty two environment and health ministers from the WHO European region met just a year ago and adopted the Parma Declaration on E&H to provide a roadmap for decision-makers action, that is to implement the Parma commitments with ambitious objectives and targets. Given the situation outlined above, there is a clear necessity to have a 7 EAP as well as a 2nd EHAP. 2. In what ways has the 6thEAP contributed to the achievement of these positive environmental impacts? What in your view were the notable successes of the 6th EAP in that respect? As noted above, the successes are to have put E&H on the strategic and overall EU agenda, and spelling out concrete ways to reduce the environmental burden of disease with the EAP goals and through the thematic strategies, for example on pesticides and air pollution. The Thematic strategy on pesticides with the legislation on pesticides authorization and the directive on sustainable use have great potential for providing better protection of human health, especially for vulnerable groups. However, full implementation remains a key issue. This is also true for REACH, which is a milestone in EU chemicals policy, but also characterized by many compromises, and slow implementation. We need to advance swifter on the goal of phasing out hazardous chemicals and on substitution, especially given the increased environment and health science on the potential harmful effects of chemicals cocktails and endocrine disruptors. 3. In which areas have there been less progress than expected in the 6thEAP and what are the likely reasons for this lack of progress? The success of the 6EAP also depends on the political willingness for a strong implementation in order to reach the aim of “providing an environment where the level of pollution does not give rise to harmful effects on human health and the environment.” There are certainly areas where progress has been less than expected: A lack of progress can be seen in reducing outdoor air pollution, where the level of ambition was already reduced in the Thematic Strategy on air pollution, and we are still far back from reaching the 6EAP goal. This should not mean that the level of ambition is reduced, as the EU limit values are still above WHO recommended limits, but rather that renewed efforts are being carried out to assist EU Member States in reaching ambient air quality limits. The revision of the National Emissions Ceilings Directive is also overdue. We would have also liked to see more exchange of good practices between EU member states, as they do not sufficiently exchange information on instruments and strategic approaches that could be drivers for change and would result in a substantial gain in time, human and financial resources spend by each member state for developing and implementing new methods and approaches in sectors with a high impact on the environment, such as energy production and consumption, public transport etc. We can especially not be satisfied with the progress made in ensuring health and quality of life in urban environments, where health impacts because of air pollution, chemicals/pesticides or noise pollution are high, and where impacts of climate change are of specific concern (see the recent research that has come out for example the WHO assessment of burden of disease of environmental noise, the Aphekom findings etc.) Therefore we view critically the success of the Thematic Strategy on Urban Environment, which unfortunately has been quietly forgotten. The Thematic strategy was an excellent opportunity to set out an integrated approach to tackling a range of related E&H issues as they affect the most vulnerable in society, and this opportunity was not seized. We know that 75% of EU citizens live in cities, the number is expected to rise, so there is an urgent need to address health and quality of life in cities. This reflects overall a lack of progress in integrated thinking / multidisciplinary approaches. Single discipline matters do seem to have progressed (e.g. pesticides) but we haven’t really made any progress on integrating concerns for example with sustainable agriculture, chemical use and diet, or physical activity, sustainable transport and air quality / noise. It is also notable that certain rules put in place for legislation in one area such as pesticides may not be the same for a similar category of products such as biocides. Because of these and other continued and emerging challenges it is essential to have a renewed commitment with a 7 EAP addressing and acting on the E&H challenges. 4. In your view are there gaps in environment policy that are not addressed by the 6th EAP? The 6EAP presents the state of information on environment and health links at the time. In the meantime and because of the 6EAP and EHAP, we have seen an immense increase in the science base, which has in turn supported policy making and highlighted gaps in political action. This relates especially to the area of chemicals and pesticides, where scientific evidence has increased on the harmful effects to health of chemicals mixtures. EU policy-makers have started to recognize the need to include chemicals mixtures in risk assessment and authorization, but progress is not fast enough. Chemicals mixtures should be a priority for a 7 EAP. Indoor air pollution was only briefly addressed under the E&H section, and was followed up in EHAP and the EU Public Health Programme. As the SOER 2010 mentions it is a somewhat neglected area considering the amount of time Europeans spend indoors. This should be a focus of a 7 EAP. We also have seen only recently heightened efforts on establishing an EU-wide Human biomonitoring system as a way to determine exposure to hazardous chemicals and to act on reducing exposure. As shown in the US, cross population of HBM can also facilitate the development of health impact assessments of certain chemicals and in turn provide more realistic economic data. HBM is one of the successes of EHAP, and we need to ensure that future funding is secured. An E&H focus in the 7EAP should also make a clear link to socio-economic factors such as health inequalities and socio-economic benefits of health supporting environments: for example changing our ways of transport will benefit climate change mitigation policies, air quality and the general health of the population. 5. What lessons can be learned from the 6thEAP? All EU environment action programs have provided a longer term orientation on objectives and where the EU wants to go in terms of environmental policy. We need to have such an “overarching vision” in order to bring together the scope of environmental challenges we are facing today and thinking about the right policy answers. 6. Taking into account the lessons learned from the 6thEAP what in your view are the emerging environmental policy challenges? As the SOER 2010 pointed out, for environment and health progress has been made, but many challenges remain. Chronic disease such as cancer, asthma+allergies, respiratory diseases, cardiovascular diseases continue to be on the rise in Europe, and evidence on role that the environment plays as a cause is increasing and consolidating. Especially worrying are the findings on critical windows of exposure, that exposure to environmental pollution can have effects on illnesses much later in life. We need to have a broad focus on prevention and precaution with a 7 EAP but also a next EHAP to drive forward E&H research and policy action with the goal of reducing the environmental burden of disease. The list of challenges is long: chemicals mixtures, indoor air quality (ensuring especially that energy and resource efficient buildings are also health-friendly), ensuring good urban environment better calculation of economic gains from reducing ill health related to unsafe, unhealthy, environments Climate change and changing environment, and potential for re-emergence / new zoonotic diseases Increased mobility of EU citizens and potential disease transmission Changing demographics of EU population (and strategies such as Healthy Ageing which do not yet consider environmental factors) Degradation of ecosystem services Specific Questions 7. The 6thEAP had a number of characteristics on which it would be useful to have your views: Considering how the objectives and priority actions are formulated in the 6thEAP, do you consider them, including the 156 actions, to be too detailed or not detailed enough? Was the ten-year timeline of the 6thEAP appropriate? Was it the right balance between providing a degree of certainty for future policy development, the need to keep momentum in the programme and the time required for adoption of proposals, transposition into national legislation and implementation? Was the approach of developing thematic strategies before proposing legislative initiatives helpful or not? Are there any other characteristics of the 6thEAP which you regard as particularly helpful or unhelpful? The environment and health links are complex phenomena, so it is important to grasp all aspects of it with different actions. 10 years was the right timeframe to achieve results. 8. Did the 6thEAP contribute to improving implementation of EU environment legislation? Could that contribution have been made more effective? How (e.g. by the inclusion of additional implementation targets and indicators, etc) ? Implementation depends on political will and funding, which is influenced by an understanding of the issues. Having a 6 EAP has helped to keep the environmental momentum for EU policy in general; more specifically having the clear focus on E&H has served to increase awareness. But implementation remains key and should be tied better to other EU policies such as Cohesion policy and EU financing schemes through for example EIB. 9. Did the 6thEAP improve coherence within environmental policy and between environment policy and other policy areas? Was the 6thEAP able to boost integration of environmental concerns into other policy areas and, if so, how? Yes, the EAP helped to increase cohesion with for example the EU public health programme, but integration and policy coherence remains a key challenge. 10. How far has the 6thEAP advanced the EU's international environmental agenda? What do you consider to be the notable successes, disappointments and the reasons why? No comments on this question. |
| 07/04/2011 | HEAL Briefing paper: Children’s health and the environment |
| 04/04/2011 | Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals under REACH: Four Priority Areas for Regulation |
| 03/04/2011 | NGO Position paper: Requirements for the proper regulation of chemicals with endrocrine disrupting properties |
| 15/03/2011 | HEAL Briefing paper: Reducing cancer through environmental policy change |
| 15/12/2010 | NGO Position paper: Cancun Climate and Health Statement (French) |
| 15/12/2010 | NGO Position paper: Cancun Climate and Health Statement (ENGLISH) |
| 15/12/2010 | NGO Position paper: Cancun Climate and Health Statement (SPANISH) |
| 13/09/2010 | NGO Position paper: Sixtieth session of the WHO Regional Committee for Europe |
| 12/03/2010 | NGO Interventions: WHO Fifth Ministerial Conference on Environment and Health WHO Fifth Ministerial Conference on Environment and Health 10 – 12th March, 2010 HEAL Interventions Intervention on climate change and health Genon Jensen, Health and Environment Alliance The Health and Environment Alliance told the plenary on climate change at Parma ministerial meeting this morning about the "good news" on climate change. To the Assembly of about 500 people, we welcomed the increased political commitment on climate change and health, and the WHO European Regional Framework for Action on climate change, known as the "Road Map", which had been developed to complement the European Commission's. HEAL has been working on health and climate change since 2007. It has been very exciting to see the level of interest rising steadily. By using the health arguments for climate change policy, including on energy efficiency, we have seen growing involvement from medical professionals, medical students, patients groups as well as a whole range of non-governmental organisations. We co-led a large health delegation to Copenhagen and struggled to raise this message in the climate talks in close collaboration with WHO. It was not easy. We started to ask ourselves: "Is it worth it?" But hearing during this session in Parma about what others are doing on the road to Cancun, Mexico where the next talks will take place, and the commitment from WHO Executive Director Margaret Chan, we are re-invigorated, it has given us strong encouragement. The political commitment has been made clear here. What needs to happen now is for all of us to speak to the scientists on the UN IPCCC - and we need to tell those responsible in our countries about the health arguments in the climate change debate, and ask our health ministers to get involved in making the case for stronger climate targets. Often, people don't know about the co-benefits to health, and they are interested. They want to know how to make the arguments on the cost benefits of climate change measures and how these can protect future health. We have a clear programme of measures that are known to benefit health. We can confidently claim that what is good for the planet is good for health. Next week, amendments on the health co-benefits to the European Commission's White Paper on adaptation will be discussed in the European Parliament’s Environment Committee. This is major progress and very encouraging because only two years ago, when we tried to interest politicians in our message on health issues, we had very little success. How you can help Last year, HEAL, Health Care Without Harm, and Climate and Health Council launched a campaign called the Prescription for a Healthy Planet. Through this campaign, we are able to provide the health evidence on the effects of climate change on health as well as the opportunities for public health of climate change policy. It is a global campaign that has already been endorsed by 100 organisations worldwide, including the Standing Committee of European Doctors (CPME), the European Respiratory Society (ERS) and the International Society for Doctors for the Environment (ISDE). We have four simple demands: . Protect public health . Set strong targets on emission reductions . Promote clean energy . Fund global action. HEAL called on those attending the plenary to join the campaign as we prepare for Cancun. The campaign website provides all the details and the sign-up page at www.climateandhealthcare.org -* Intervention on Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals Prof. André Cicolella, Reseau Environnement Sante (RES) "HEAL organization, as a diverse network of over 60 european NGOs, we give our support to the Parma declaration on Environment and Health and its proposals at state level. We welcome also the context which allows us to provide our expertise and to take part in the preparation of the conference. Over the past 20 years, this process has lead governments to adopt policies on Environment and Health and raised awareness amongst citizens of the threats to health posed by environmental factors. However, in spite of all these efforts we see that chronic diseases, for which environmental factors are mainly responsible, have still increased. For examples, there is no European country where diabetes or cancer have decreased. The fact that cancer rates amongst children has increased shows us that it is our current environment which is at stake. Facing the challenge of chronic disease growth should be our main objective. To do this we need paradigmatic shift – we need to understand that the health crisis is an ecological crisis, as much as for example, climate crisis. An illustration of this would be the emerging risks such as endocrine disruptors chemicals (EDCs). A significant and growing body of scientific data considers EDCs as closely entwined in the growth of chronic diseases. The next conference must focus on this important issue. This intervention is also available in French -* Intervention on Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals Maureen Butter, Platform Health and Environment Many endocrine disruptors persist in the ambient environment for decades in concentrations capable of harming the fetus. Maureen called upon the member states to stimulate medical intervention counteracting the damage of environmental chemicals. The Platform owes thanks to Janna Koppe from Ecobaby for providing evidence that such interventions are possible and should be further developed. The Platform will be happy to share this info with all interested parties. -* Intervention on child injury Joanne Vincenten, European Child Safety Alliance Thank you to the speakers from the morning session and their reflections as to the achievement and challenges faced while implementing CEHAPE. In the field of injury prevention we have found similar results. Of note, an estimated 345 children across Europe will die from an injury during the three day Ministerial Conference on Environment and Health in Parma, Italy and this will happen despite the fact that we know what works to prevent many of these injuries. A number of delegates are wearing grey ribbons during the conference as a remembrance of these children that will die. Child injury has the largest environmental burden for children compared to outdoor/indoor contaminants, water, sanitation and hygienic issues or lead contaminants. Unintentional injuries are also the leading cause of inequality in childhood death, for both girls and boys. We are pleased to hear from so many countries here today that have participated in child injury prevention activities including the Child Safety Action Plan initiative, which was financially supported by the European Commission and has linked to the CEHAPE process, in order to collaboratively produce a number of results including: 24 countries have been part of child safety report card assessments and are developing child safety action plans where none existed previously. Countries that have been involved in 2007 and 2009 report card assessments all demonstrated safety improvements for children, evidence good practice has been gathered and published to support country use and further collaboration and cooperation in a multi-sectoral approach has been enhanced through the process. We thank the Member States for their efforts to work with the European Child Safety Alliance to reduce the leading cause of death to children in their Member States. Yet as stated by Professor George Morris in his presentation, we confirm the lessons that have been learnt in the implementation process of our Child Safety Action Plan initiate as part of the CEHAPE process, such as the need for high level leadership and commitment, early and continued support of the right people, and access to good resources in order to implement. The greatest challenged expressed by our country partners was when changed occurred in elected officials, often resulting in processes being set back or restarting discussions and agreements. Despite the magnitude and burden injury causes, many Member States have not yet adopted and/or fully implemented and enforced those measures that have been proven to reduce childhood injury. Countries continued commitment to adopt, implement and enforce what has proven to work will save more children’s lives and can be done in while working with multiple sectors as child injury prevention crosses many domains while working to attain greater health and safety for all. |
| 15/02/2010 | NGO Position Paper on RoHS revision |
| 30/10/2009 |
Green 10 Position paper: Nature and health briefing for the Parliament |
| 22/12/2008 | HEAL Position paper: Cancer Prevention and the Environment - examples and opportunities for national and EU policy makers The Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL) held the meeting on Tuesday, 2 December 2008 at its Brussels office. It provided an opportunity to share examples, firstly, of cancer prevention strategies that involve reducing environmental exposures and, secondly, of opportunities for cancer prevention through European Union (EU) environmental health policies. It marked the beginning of an informal European network on cancer prevention related to environmental factors. The term ‘environmental factors’ is often used differently - here the discussion pertained to ‘involuntary’ exposures such as those in the work place, from contaminants in food, air, water and soil, and chemicals in consumer products. Furthermore, in this workshop, the focus was on increasing incidence of cancer. Below is a synopsis of the discussions and presentations arranged in the order of i) context; ii) strategies; iii) policy and iv) other opportunities; v) constraints; vi) good examples and perspectives from EU countries. Finally, some brief words of conclusion and next steps are given. |
| 24/06/2008 | NGO Position paper: Climate change and health - Engaging the regions Conference Recommendations |
| 15/04/2008 | Green 10 Position paper: Sustainability - Our vision for a new EU budget |
| 15/04/2008 | Green 10 Position paper: Ten green principles for the EU budget review |
| 13/02/2008 | NGO Consultation response: RoHS Directive - technical changes to the scope of the directive, definitions and facilitating implementation |
| 15/12/2007 | HEAL Consultation response: European Commission Green Paper on Climate Change 2007 |
| 15/09/2007 | NGO Position paper: Pesticides and health |
| 15/07/2007 | HEAL Consultation response: Response to EC consultation on access to documents |
| 12/02/2007 | HEAL Consultation response: discussion document for a health strategy – “Health in Europe: a strategic approach” |
| 31/08/2006 | HEAL Consultation response: the European Transparency Initiative (ETI) Green Paper |
| 11/05/2006 | HEAL Position paper: EU thematic strategy and air quality health limit values |
| 15/03/2006 | NGO Position paper: Priorities for REACH second reading (ES) |
| 15/03/2006 | NGO Position paper: Priorities for REACH second reading (EN) |
| 15/03/2006 | NGO Position paper: Priorities for REACH second reading (FR) |
| 28/02/2006 | Green 10 Position paper: The creation of a high level group on competitiveness |
| 13/07/2005 | Green 10 Position paper: A revised sustainable development strategy for the EU |
| 16/06/2005 | HEAL Position paper: Community strategy concerning mercury |
| 16/05/2005 | HEAL Position paper: EU climate change and health |
| 16/03/2005 | NGO Position paper: Five key demands to improve REACH |
| 16/02/2005 | Green 10 Position paper: Policy challenges and budgetary means of the enlarged union 2007 - 2013 |
| 16/12/2004 | HEAL Position paper: Children´s special health vulnerability to environmental hazards and REACH |
| 03/12/2004 | HEAL Position paper: ‘The European Environment & Health Action Plan 2004-2010’ EPHA Environment Network officially presented a position paper on the EU Action Plan on Environment and Health 2004-2010 on the occasion of the EU and Dutch implementation conference which took place in The Netherlands on 2-3 December 2004. Although HEAL welcomed the Action Plan as a general framework in which to address environmental health challenges, HEAL is disappointed that the significant contribution by Environment and Health Groups, who act on behalf of the wider public, has been, to a large extent, disregarded. The Action Plan fails to take forward many of the concrete and important proposals of the SCALE Technical Working Groups and Consultative Group. Key demands for implementing the Action Plan HEAL has several key points that are essential to consider in the implementation of the Action Plan. 1. Legislative action or review is a must for an ACTION plan. 2. Precautionary decision-making should provide the basis for SCALE. 3. Protection of vulnerable groups must be at the heart of the Action Plan. This includes improved risk assessment methods that protect vulnerable groups and take into account cocktail effects, low doses and exposure during critical periods of development. 4. The work carried out in the framework of the WHO Environment and Health process, in particular the Children’s Environment and Health Action Plan, and the SCALE process must be properly coordinated. 5. A comprehensive communications strategy and information system must be an integral part of the implementation in order to deliver information on environment-linked health risks in response to European citizens demands. This includes strengthening links between information gathering (Actions 1-4) and awareness raising (Actions 9-13). 6. Concrete measures and resources to create an EU coordinating body for environment and health issues. 7. Development of an integrated EU environment and health mapping (geographical) system. 8. Setting up an EU wide biomonitoring programme. 9. Financial resources and targets, which are critical for better environmental health, must underpin the Action Plan. 10. Four priority diseases have been identified for the first cycle (2004-2010), discussions should begin to discuss priority areas for the second cycle by 2006 on the basis of a mid-term report. HEAL believes that overall EU leadership has not yet delivered what citizens have been asking for in this area, namely that concrete strides are made in reducing environmental pollution that has a negative impact on people’s health and ensuring that legislation adequately protects our most vulnerable groups in society such as children, women of child bearing age, pregnant women and socio-economically deprived groups. HEAL realises the tight time schedule and the demanding workload that the Commission was working to in order to present the Action Plan at the Fourth Ministerial Conference on Environment and Health in Budapest this June gone. HEAL hopes that the Action Plan can now be implemented into concrete measures, guidelines and action that address the reduction of environmental contaminants that undermine our health and the sustainability of our environment. The full position paper can be viewed below. For further information please contact Genon Jensen. |
| 25/11/2004 | HEAL Consultation response: ‘The European Environment & Health Action Plan 2004-2010” (full version) |
| 16/11/2004 | Green 10 Position paper: The EU’s new Constitution - assessing the Environmental Perspective |
| 16/10/2004 | HEAL Consultation response: ‘The European Environment & Health Action Plan 2004-2010” (short version) |
