Trio fights for ‘green’ standards

Date: 24/04/1997

By Michael Mann

ENVIRONMENT experts from the three newest EU member states will demand next week that they be allowed to maintain tougher standards than those applying elsewhere in the Union.

High-ranking officials from Austria, Sweden and Finland will seek assurances from Marius Enthoven, the European Commission's director-general for the environment, that EU legislation will be brought into line with their stricter norms before their special exemptions from the Union treaty expire on 1 January 1999.

But all three countries believe resistance from industrial interests in other member states could make this impossible to achieve before the end of next year.

“Environment Commissioner Ritt Bjerregaard has said that none of us should be forced to lower our current level of protection, so we are looking for EU standards to be brought up to our level,” said a Swedish diplomat.

After months of often heated negotiations, Austria, Sweden and Finland were granted special derogations from EU 'green' laws in their treaties of accession, finalised during 1994.

These gave them four years of special treatment before they were required to follow Union legislation to the letter. Since then, the three - who are known for their tough attitudes to environmental protection - have been heartened by both Bjerregaard's words and moves to bring certain EU rules up to their own standards.

But some problems are far from being solved, partly because different Commission departments are responsible for different legislation and partly because even if the Commission can come up with potential solutions, these are likely to run into opposition from other Union governments.

If the disagreements cannot be sorted out by the deadline, one option would be for the three countries to plead special health or environmental grounds for maintaining rules which would otherwise be contrary to the single market.

At this stage, no one is willing to dismiss the possibility of a further extension to the 'transitional' rules. “Legally, the Commission could force us to take on lower EU standards, but politically, it would be very embarrassing,” said a Finnish diplomat.

Austria, which was granted nine exemptions from Union law - mainly concerning the labelling, packaging and classification of dangerous chemicals - has perhaps the most concerns.

Specific problem areas include the use of polychlorinated phenyls to preserve wood, mercury and cadmium in batteries, the ingredients used in agricultural fertilisers and the sulphur and benzene content of fuels.

But although they have fewer derogations, Finland and Sweden face similar difficulties.

The fuels question has largely been dealt with under the 'Auto-Oil' proposals currently working their way through the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament.

But Finnish officials stress this would leave the problem of Helsinki's stricter limits on sulphur in heating fuel, and are hoping that the recently adopted anti-acidification strategy could offer a solution.

The classification of certain dangerous substances could also be dealt with relatively simply under EU committee procedures, and revisions have already been proposed to a 1988 law on labelling and another on the classification of pesticides.

But getting agreement on additional labelling requirements would be far harder. “This would require changes to two directives and the agreement of the Council of Ministers,” said an Austrian official.

All three countries believe industrial lobbying in the UK, France and several southern member states will make it very difficult to get a deal. “These may be small in terms of overall environmental policy, but they are very important issues to the Austrian public,” stressed an official.