Barroso’s variations on a theme

Date: 13/10/05

In the run up to the summer, it seemed as though things could not get worse for Europe's environment lobby. Already sceptical about the new European Commission's priorities under President José Manuel Barroso, its worst fears were confirmed when Barroso threatened to pull a raft of initiatives - known as thematic strategies - off the table.

Barroso's threat was largely based on industryopposition to the first strategy on air pollution which, forcing companies to cap emissions of particulates as well as tightening limits on pollutants like nitrous oxides and ammonia, came with an initial price tag of EUR 12 billion.

But after environment officials agreed to scale down the ambition of the proposal - to cost EUR 7.1bn versus health benefits of EUR 42bn with reduced targets for cutting ozone pollution and deaths expected to be slightly fewer - the commissioners eventually backed the proposal, which was published on 21 September.

All but one of the five other strategies - on maritime industry, waste and the sustainable use of resources (originally two strategies), soil, urban environmental management and pesticides - are set for adoption before the Christmas holiday.

The question is, how will they fare after fierce scrutiny by the European Parliament and national governments? At stake is not just the content of the proposals, but the streamlined nature of the proposals so far.

The Commission's environment department has prided itself on the way that the proposals have been drafted, with impact assessments and careful cost-benefit analyses.

"When I think of the Lisbon Agenda, I think of the thematic strategies," said one environment official in the Commission. "They have been simplified and modernised to fit with the idea of better legislation while providing protection for the environment."

This appraisal is open to criticism. One government official points out that, while the EU executive has always charted the benefits of reducing air pollution, it might not be able to pat itself on the back quite so much for the cost-benefit analysis of the other strategies.

And the green lobby, which had already voiced its disappointment with the weakened air pollution strategy, is getting ready to attack the next strategy.

Originally meant to be on the conservation of the marine environment, the proposal will now aim to boost the maritime economy, albeit in an "environmentally sustainable manner".

"The worry is that the better regulation agenda is in fact biased towards economic concerns and that simplification actually means deregulation," said Stefan Scheuer, director of non-governmental organisation the European Environmental Bureau.

Scheuer highlighted the waste strategy, which will repeal a directive forcing companies to recycle waste oil and rules on the collection and recycling of biowaste, which was planned under the original strategy programme in 2001 but has been omitted from the Commission's latest drafts.

The Commission argues that recycling waste oil is not always the most environmentally friendly solution.

But if the Commission has weighed up in detail the impact of the strategies, then assuming that they get the obligatory College green light, the challenge for national governments and MEPs - watched closely by industry - will be to undertake similar assessment for any important amendments.

Though better regulation requires impact assessments throughout the legislative procedure, this is essentially uncharted territory.

"The real problem is how to deal with any changes we want to make," said one government official.

"Who will carry out any impact assessment? The Parliament has never done any and what about member states? Can we ask a tiny country like Malta to undertake in-depth assessment if it wants to propose amendments?"

Environment ministers will hold a public debate on this issue on Monday (17 October). Though no conclusions are expected, industry and environmentalists will be watching closely to see which way ministers are leaning. Because in addition to the question of amending the proposal, they will also be considering other 'better regulation' tools for the strategies such as screening, simplification or even no action at all.

Article takes a look at the European Commission's work on proposals for thematic strategies in the field of environment and how these are affected by moves towards 'better regulation'.

European Commission: DG Environment http://ec.europa.eu/comm/environment/index_en.htm

---