Green action plan big on hot air but short on targets

Date: 01/02/01

Margot Wallström's long-awaited Sixth Environmental Action Programme has met a cool response from many MEPs. Gareth Harding argues that the Environment Commissioner's blueprint poses more questions than it answers

Last week's launch of the Sixth Environmental Action Programme - the EU's green blueprint for the next decade - shows how professional the 'new and improved' European Commission of President Romano Prodi has become at presenting major policy proposals.

As environment chief Margot Wallström strode into the bear-pit that is the Commission's pressroom, flashes popped, cameras rolled, hands shot up and after 20 minutes of strictly-regulated questions, the telegenic Swede was whisked off for a live satellite link-up with correspondents across the continent.

But when it came to getting hold of copies of the programme the EU executive has spent years preparing, the Commission once again showed its familiar old self. It took a journey into the bowels of the institution's headquarters and a chance meeting with a friendly photocopier for the actual text to emerge.

In the months leading up to the paper's publication, Wallström promised a short, strategic document that could be read by the general public. At 80 pages, short it isn't. Neither is it particularly punchy.

Admittedly the title is an ad-man's dream: Environment 2010: Our future, Our choice is vague enough to sound visionary without offending anyone. Likewise, the opening paragraph about the importance of leaving a clean and healthy environment for our children is suitably harmless. But it is hardly the stuff that inspires you to join Greenpeace or even leave the car in the garage.

The previous action programme, which was launched in 1993 and expired at the end of last year, was simply subtitled Towards Sustainability. Its goal was to put the Union on a sustainable footing by the start of the new century and it contained a raft of detailed targets and measures for meeting this goal.

The 'end-of-term' report on the fifth action programme showed that the EU missed many of the environmental targets it set itself at the start of the 1990s. But defenders of the programme say that at least it had vision.

Many MEPs and environmental groups believe that the Commission's current proposal lacks imagination and, most importantly, is devoid of any targets for measuring progress towards sustainable development.

The vice-president of the European Parliament's environment committee, Alexander de Roo, says the new action programme is "worse" than the one it replaces and accuses the Commission of "missing a great opportunity to spell out the fundamental basics needed for sound environmental policies for the next ten years".

The assembly's spokeswoman on the issue, Finnish Socialist Riitta Myller, also voices her disappointment with the programme. "There are a lot of good ideas in the discussion part of the paper but almost no concrete targets in the legislative part," she complained.

The Commission will not be able to brush aside Parliament's criticism easily, because for the first time MEPs share equal decision-making powers with member states over the new programme. This is almost certain to mean months of squabbling among the institutions before a final text emerges, leaving EU environmental policy in limbo for the near future.

The Commission says the action programme is meant to set out the key challenges for the future rather than prescribe a set of policies for meeting its goals. However, this not only ignores the wishes of MEPs and environmental groups, who have repeatedly called for targets and timetables, but of Union environment ministers who will eventually have to put their signatures on the new programme. In a resolution adopted last March, they called on the Commission to set "clear priorities and objectives for the next 10 years" and to back these up with targets and timetables where necessary.

In some areas, new goals are set. For example, the programme declares the EU will have to go way beyond its current commitment to cut greenhouse gases by 8% by 2012 and aim for a 20-40% reduction by 2020 instead. It also aims to halve the amount of hazardous waste generated by 2050. But neither of these goals is to be found in the legislative part of the paper.

An aide close to Wallström says the Commission shied away from setting concrete targets because it did not have the necessary data to draw up scientifically-sound and properly-costed objectives. "We did not want to enter into a game where we plucked figures out of the air and then found ourselves under enormous pressure to tighten or weaken them," said the official, referring to the arbitrary and often unrealistic targets set at the start of the fifth action programme.

Aside from the thorny issue of targets, most of the policy proposals in the programme are likely to be welcomed by both MEPs and EU governments. Indeed, the paper draws heavily on last year's Environment Council resolution and Parliament proposals to improve the implementation of Union laws.

A pledge to decouple the link between economic growth and environmental damage is there, as is a promise to broaden the range of policy instruments used to protect the environment. Following a trend set in the last programme, there will also be less of an emphasis on legislation and more on voluntary agreements and other business-friendly measures.

But if the new programme tips its hat to the wishes of the Parliament and the Council of Ministers, it still has Commissioner Wallström's philosophy stamped all over it. In her audition before the environment committee 18 months ago, the Swede promised to focus on the 'three i's of implementation, integration and information during her term of office. This trio of ideas forms the backbone of the new programme.

Like the Parliament, Wallström wants to see more emphasis on implementing the 200-plus environmental laws currently in place and less on drawing up rafts of new ones. But she is also prepared to 'name, fame and shame' countries that fail to implement legislation and will push the Court of Justice to fine serial wrongdoers.

The process of integrating environmental concerns into other policy areas - such as transport and energy - must be deepened, says the programme. However, aside from a call to fully assess all EU policy initiatives in this light, it offers precious few proposals on how to convert this dream into reality.

Launching the paper last week, Wallström said integration was about making sure that policies were consistent with each other. But as long as the Commission continues to sanction state aids to polluting industries and funds for road-building and intensive farming, this wish is likely to remain just that.

In terms of priority areas, the Sixth Action Programme also reflects the concerns the Commissioner promised Parliament she would address. Combating climate change, ensuring the health of citizens, protecting the public from dangerous chemicals, reducing Europe's waste mountain and safeguarding the continent's natural resources - these goals will guide EU environment policy-making over the next decade.

But in terms of legislative measures or even new policy instruments to achieve these aims, there is little that is original in the programme. It is true that new laws on environmental liability, noise pollution and soil protection all figure prominently, but they have all been in the pipeline for years - as have initiatives on resource-efficiency and 'cradle to grave' product policy.

Some tantalising suggestions do pop up in the discussion document tacked on to the legislative proposal. For example, there are plans to undertake an inventory of energy subsidies in the member states and extend the EU's key nature protection law to the marine environment.

But when it comes to finding solutions to Europe's most pressing environmental problems, the programme appears to provide all the right analyses - but few of the answers.

Major feature on the Sixth Environmental Action Programme.