Environmental measures in developing countries in the context of sustainable development

In its opinion on the Council's common position, the Commission stated that it did not agree with the text adopted by the Council for several reasons: - as regards the scope of the regulation: if it approved the extension of the scope of the regulation, adequate funding would have to be provided for in order to fulfill the various objectives proposed, - as regards the limited duration of the regulation and the inclusion of a financial reference amount, which, in its view, involved the Council alone (rather than the entire budgetary authority), - as regards the information to be provided to the Council: the Commission believed that it was being called upon to complete an unacceptable number of procedures (information to the committee for projects totalling over ECU 2 million, exchanges of views on the general guidelines, the submission of an annual report, ex-ante information for projects totalling less than ECU 2 million and ex-post information for all projects one month after the decision is taken on financing). It pointed out that when it has powers without committee intervention, it exercises them in accordance with the appropriate rules on transparency. As a result, it could not approve additional conditions that went beyond the framework established by Council Decision 87/373/EEC, - the Commission did not agree with the decision to opt for a regulatory committee procedure rather than an advisory committee, - finally, given that the Council had adopted very few of the European Parliament's amendments, the Commission stressed that in its amended proposal it would take over as many amendments as possible that would be adopted by the European Parliament at second reading. �