European environmental policy is made at EU level and, like most policy areas, legislation is agreed by qualified majority voting. This requires not just a majority of Member States to be in favour, but for them to represent normally at least 60% of EU citizens. The nature of this means of course that not all countries are equally enthusiastic about particular decisions, but will compromise as part of the normal semi-democratic horse-trading that goes on in Brussels.
The net result has been a steady move towards a highly precautionary stance on environmental matters, accompanied by sustained lobbying from environmentalists groups, many of whom receive funding from the EU. This curious symbiotic relationship is worthy of further analysis, but that must wait for another time.
The circular nature of the relationship – the EU Commission funding NGOs to encourage or justify actions it is inclined towards in the first place – is to some extent mirrored by Commission proposals for a ‘Circular Economy’. This package, announced in July this year (Towards a circular economy; a zero waste programme for Europe), includes a number of legally-binding targets, including:
- a 70% recycling target for municipal waste by 2030
- an 80% recycling target for packaging, such as glass, paper, metal and plastic by 2030
- a ban on landfilling of all recyclable and biodegradable waste by 2025
- a reduction of 30% in the generation of food waste by 2025
In themselves, these seem perfectly sensible targets and are consistent with the vision of a European Knowledge-Based Bioeconomy, which remains an aspiration although a rather low-profile one at the moment. According to the Commission, “achieving the new waste targets would create 180 000 new jobs, while making Europe more competitive and reducing demand for costly scarce resources.”
Experience suggests that this is likely to be optimistic, particularly because specific quantitative targets provide incentives for organisations to fulfil the letter of the legislation while not necessarily doing the best thing for the economy or environment. For those in any doubt, climate change mitigation programmes and the UK government’s recurring obsession with detailed targets for healthcare and education provide some sobering examples.
The circular economy measures are exactly what we would expect from the Commission. How interesting, then, that it appears they may be withdrawn from next year’s legislative programme, along with proposals to tighten and extend air pollution standards (Commission plans to ditch circular economy and air pollution rules). “Sources told EurActiv that Commissioners were handed a secret document yesterday (10 December) at their weekly meeting. The document, outlining a list of bills to be killed off by Commission Vice-President Frans Timmermans, was taken back from the Commissioners, after it was read and discussed. A leaked version of the work programme, which emerged today, appeared to confirm the environmental laws, and 78 other pieces of pending legislation, would be scrapped. The Air Quality rules would be modified in view of the 2030 Climate and Energy package, the document said.”
What is going on behind the scenes in the corridors of Brussels is anyone’s guess; European institutions are never the most transparent of bodies and their workings and interactions often seem arcane to the uninitiated (ie most people). It seems clear that industry lobbied for both pieces of legislation to be withdrawn, (with the circular economy to be recast as an economic regulation) and that the environmental lobby wanted their continuation. In any case, the incoming Commission has rejigged the priorities for next year, which is quite normal considering that the programme was the work of the outgoing Barroso Commission.
We are told that a number of Member States – Belgium, Germany, Greece, Spain, France, Italy, Cyprus, Luxembourg, Portugal, Slovenia and Sweden – wrote to Jean-Claude Juncker in support of the packages, but that leaves 17 countries who did not feel the need to do this, suggesting a clear split of opinion. There is certainly a tension within the Union between the states which want to push the environmentalist agenda further and those who take a more pragmatic view, the UK included.
The withdrawal of the air pollution package should be seen most probably not as a watering down of standards but a recognition of the need to first comply with existing ones. Air quality has undoubtedly improved dramatically across most of the continent in the last half century, but the big current problem is the difficulty for many cities of complying with limits on atmospheric nitrogen dioxide.
NO2 is produced from a range of sources, but diesel-engined vehicles are the primary target of regulators at present. In a nice example of the law of unintended consequences, the encouragement of diesel cars because of their lower carbon dioxide emissions made the problems of nitrogen dioxide and small particulates (PM10 and PM2.5) worse. Newer generations of engines have brought particulates down below the limit, but NO2 remains a problem for the next few years.
A messy compromise has also been achieved on the vexed question of GM crops (EU agreement opens door for new GMO cultivation in 2015). This pleases no-one, because on one hand it allows Member States to ban cultivation of approved crops on their territories for non-scientific reasons, while on the other it maintains the evidence-based approach to recommending approvals.
It is probably asking too much of the EU institutions to make a clear-cut choice between relying on science or bowing to the green lobby, so we can expect further decisions based on politics rather than evidence. But shifts in the balance of power are important in the opaque world of European policymaking, and a new Commission has the opportunity to move that balance a little in the direction of objectivity.
Martin Livermore
The Scientific Alliance
St John’s Innovation Centre
Cowley Road
Cambridge CB4 0WS
_________________________________________________________________