Experts air views on pollution

Date: 14/11/1996

By Michael Mann

A HIGH-POWERED array of experts will gather in Brussels next week to begin the public debate on the European Commission's plans to reduce pollution from road transport.

Serious legislative progress on the auto-oil proposals is unlikely this year as MEPs are not expected to hold their first discussions on the issue until next January.

But German Socialist MEP Bernd Lange, rapporteur on the emissions proposals, has already made it clear that he feels the proposed fuel quality standards are too weak.

He points to a number of countries which already apply tighter standards, stressing particular concern about the excessive sulphur content in fuels.

One of Lange's major concerns has been “a big lack of transparency” in the drawing up of the proposals, which many observers believe gave the car and oil industries too much influence over the Commission's final blueprint for improvements in air quality.

It is this deficit which the 20 November public hearing on “clean fuel for clean cars” hopes, at least in part, to rectify.

A glance at the range of speakers called together by environment committee chairman Ken Collins illustrates why the Parliament's two readings of the proposals are likely to be long and painful.

The list includes Marius Enthoven, chief of Directorate-General for the environment (DGXI), representatives of the car manufacturers' association ACEA and oil industry association Europia, Max Mosley of the International Automobile Federation, and experts from various environmental sectors.

'Green' campaigners say they have been heartened by the response they have received from the MEPs they have spoken to, although they are aware that national considerations will play a role in Euro MPs' thinking.

Spanish and Greek members, for example, are concerned about plans to phase out leaded petrol by 2000, as car owners in the southern member states tend to have less modern vehicles.

Speaking for Europia, Michel Flohic is expected next week to insist that the debate is about air quality in general, and not specifically what actions should be taken to modify cars and fuels.

According to BP Oil's Bernard Bulkin, most of the intended air quality standards for 2000 and 2005 could be achieved without significant changes to legislation and technology.

“The best way to speed things up is to accelerate the turnover of the car fleet through measures such as scrappage schemes,” he insists.

Europia, generally thought to have come out of the Auto-Oil Programme better than the car industry, believes passionately that the key to success is to concentrate on local measures in the handful of cities where the Commission's plans will fail to bring the necessary improvement in air quality. “There is no point in introducing more severe pan-European measures in 2005 which will not deal with the problems in severely-polluted cities,” Bulkin added.

The greatest bugbear for both the oil and car industries is the fact that the Commission has chosen for the moment to concentrate its efforts on the transport sector.

“We insist on proportional reductions in emissions from stationary sources such as power plants. If you do not do that, no matter what you do with transport, air quality will not reach the required standards,” said a Europia spokesman.

Concerned that the Commission's proposals appear to penalise the car sector more in financial terms than the oil industry, ACEA's Luc Bastard will have a lot of persuading to do. Lange has already suggested improving the durability of anti-pollution equipment and tightening up in-use compliance checks.

There is everything to play for. The effectiveness of each speaker's arguments will play a significant role in the development of the debate in both Parliament and Council.