Battle lines drawn for confrontation over car emissions

Date: 30/01/1997

By Michael Mann

THE battle to determine car emission and fuel-quality standards for the year 2000 and beyond looks like being even more bitter than many people anticipated.

With both MEPs and EU governments preparing their positions, the debate is also coming to a head more rapidly than expected.

The Dutch presidency has already indicated that it wants to polish off a common position at the last ministerial meeting under its chairmanship in June. But the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament are already on a collision course.

At the same time, representatives of the two industries which took part in the European Commission's ground-breaking 'Auto-Oil Programme' - Europia (the oil industry association) and ACEA (representing car manufacturers) - have launched a vigorous charm offensive to limit the costs that will be imposed on them by whatever is finally decided in late 1997 or early 1998.

Even before they began detailed consideration of the proposals to reduce emissions of noxious gases and refine the make-up of car fuels, MEPs made no secret of the approach they were going to take.

German Socialist Bernd Lange's report on the Commission's plans is set to call for much tighter limits on emissions from the year 2000 and for the standards which will apply in 2005 to be changed from indicative targets into hard and fast legislative limits. French Green MEP Noël Mamère is certain to take a similarly tough line towards the proposed fuel ingredient directive.

Environmental campaigners led by the European Federation for Transport and the Environment (T&E) have concentrated their attacks on the suggested limits for sulphur and benzene content of fuels, claiming they are far too weak and constitute a continuing threat to public health.

Europia has taken a surprisingly conciliatory stance, grudgingly accepting the Commission's approach. But it has stressed that existing laws are already improving air quality in Europe's cities and maintains that the proposals for 2000 will achieve the quality goals set out under the Auto-Oil Programme without the need for a further stage in 2005.

“The 'step 2' suggested for 2005, mainly involving a reduction in sulphur content, would quadruple the costs to the oil industry for little improvement in air quality,” claims Europia's Michel Flohic.

It is generally accepted, however, that the oil industry has come off best under the proposals. Commission forecasts suggest the annual cost of its proposed measures would total 5.5 billion ecu, of which car manufacturers will probably bear the brunt.

The carmakers have been working hard to persuade MEPs that much of what the Commission has proposed goes beyond what was actually recommended in the Auto-Oil Programme.

They have pointed particularly to the planned introduction of in-use tests of whether cars comply with the regulations, enhanced inspection and maintenance, and - above all - the further step in emission requirements in 2005.

With the question inevitably heading for conciliation between Council and Parliament, the key to the final shape of EU legislation lies in the deliberations of the working groups set up by Union governments to examine the proposals.

“Basically, everyone says the planned standards for 2000 are in the right ballpark. There may be a few areas which will be tightened up slightly, but, in general, I do not think anything will change too dramatically,” said one member of the group.

As anticipated, opinion varies markedly in different member states.

The Germans, already working on domestic legislation to give tax breaks for cleaner cars, have suggested making the indicative 2005 emission targets compulsory. They will find natural allies in the Swedes, who also insist on tight environmental standards and have championed a cleaner-burning diesel fuel.

A second group of countries supports setting indicative standards for 2005, but believes the Commission is right in calling for a second

Auto-Oil Programme to start in 1998.

This would assess whether the current targets for 2005 were correct or whether the goals for the first decade of the next century should be altered to take account of technological developments.

Initial debate has seen France and Italy in a third category, prepared to live with the proposed standards for the turn of the century, but unwilling to see a second stage unless research suggests existing legislation has failed to get near the clean air targets defined under Auto-Oil.

Discussions on fuel standards have revealed general support among the member states for the basic premises of the Commission's plans, although the Nordic countries, Germany and the Netherlands want tighter parameters and Italy is seeking greater limitations on the benzene content of fuel.

Even before the Parliament has delivered its initial verdict on the plans, representatives from the EU institutions, industry, consumer groups and 'green' lobbies are due to meet to draw up terms of reference for a new Auto-Oil Programme.

A wide range of interests will be involved this time, after criticism that the original scheme was an exclusive carve-up between industry and the Commission.

The speed with which the follow-up is being planned reflects the rapid advances currently being made in car technology. But in the meantime, quite enough trouble looms with what is already on the table.

Ken Collins, chairman of the Parliament's environment committee, hopes MEPs can vote on the question in April, with ministers still aiming for a common position in June.

With Parliament certain to call for much tighter standards and member states set to do little more than tinker with the Commission's plans, some form of face-saving compromise will be the only way out of the deadlock.

“We just hope emotion does not get in the way of common sense,” said one industry lobbyist.