Green initiatives hit gridlock

Date: 07/12/1995

A COMBINATION of Cabinet inexperience, over-ambitious planning and traditional political sensitivities are holding up progress in turning EU environmental ambitions into a reality.

Only three of the 15 environmental measures promised by the European Commission in its 1995 work programme have been completed so far - and three other pieces of legislation which it still hopes to push through before the end of the year look set to be lost in the annual pre-Christmas rush.

Delays in bringing this year's work to fruition have raised scepticism among member state officials, MEPs and environmental groups about the Commission's ability to deliver on the 12 initiatives promised for 1996 in its new work programme.

Some observers have been quick to point the finger of blame for the delays at controversial Environment Commissioner Ritt Bjerregaard. As one lobbyist puts it: “She has been so busy being Danish that she hasn't had time to concentrate on the job at hand.”

Environmentalists acknowledge that Bjerregaard's tough stand on the French nuclear testing programme, which brought her into conflict with several of her Commission colleagues, has taken up much of her attention in the second half of this year.

But many blame the lack of concrete results - nearly one year into the new Commission - on Bjerregaard's selection of staff. “She is paying the price for surrounding herself with an inexperienced Cabinet, whose members don't yet know how to play the Commission game,” commented another lobbyist.

This view is backed up by disgruntled officials who claim that the Cabinet has been “sitting on” a couple of pieces of draft legislation, apparently afraid to get their teeth into what are thought to be complicated issues.

“There has also been quite a move under Bjerregaard to avoid too much complex jargon in environmental proposals to make them easier for the man in the street to understand,” said one official, describing how colleagues were despatched by the Commissioner to redraft lengthy technical documents.

This approach would certainly be praised by the champions of openness and transparency within the Commission, but officials complain that “this sort of thing isn't designed for the man in the street”.

Some suggest that there is also an element of psychology involved, which affects both officials and the Commissioner herself. Officials are naturally nervous about presenting draft reports ordered by the previous Commission for Bjerregaard's signature without consulting her first. “By the same token, she doesn't want to let this happen, so that her civil servants feel they are getting the upper hand,” said one source.

Others, including several MEPs, are less eager to place the blame at the Commissioner's door. Irish Green MEP Nuala Ahern believes that the Commission “simply tries to tackle too much” and urges it to “try and focus on what it can really achieve”.

Bjerregaard herself has admitted in recent conversations with journalists that Directorate-General XI - which includes fewer than 200 senior A and B grade officials to handle environmental policy for a Union of over 370 million people - may have been overloaded with an over-ambitious programme.

But although she has pledged to take a tougher approach to make sure that proposals do not fall far behind schedule in future, there are reports that morale in DGXI - traditionally understaffed and often short of heads of unit - is “pretty low”.

A rapid glance at work still in DGXI's pipeline reveals that the backlog also includes much unfinished business from the years prior to 1995, when Greek Commissioner Yannis Paleokrassas held the environment dossier, as well as initiatives in this year's programme.

Officials suggest that continuing hold-ups in the extension of environmental evaluation to planning measures results principally from concern elsewhere in the Commission at the probable opposition such a measure would arouse among industrialists.

“The UK for one has been battling with this concept for a long, long time. It is regarded as dangerous by some because it really gets to the bones of environmental protection,” said an official from a member state renowned for its green credentials.

The strength of opposition elsewhere in the Commission and among powerful industry lobbies is another common cause of delay.

A classic case is the planned 'auto-oil programme' to reduce noxious vehicle emissions, expected by the end of the year, but now held up after a disastrous meeting late last month which saw clear divisions emerge between DGXI and DGIII, the Directorate-General responsible for industrial policy.

Lobbying from the outside has also been intense, say member state officials. “This is a very tricky issue, because of the power of the fuel lobby and potential international complications it throws up,” said one.

It will now be considered alongside two other proposals, one on the permitted levels of sulphur in liquid fuels and the other on the release of volatile organic compounds at filling stations.

“This only accounts for about 3&percent; of emissions from volatile organic compounds, but you can guarantee that the oil companies will be lobbying hard to water things down because it will cost them money,” said an official.

DGXI officials also suggest that they have to work hard to persuade other directorates-general to take their suggestions on board, particularly “as none of the other Cabinets owes us any favours”.

Inter-service consultations always put things behind schedule, he claims, pointing out that delays are not a problem limited to DGXI. Anyway, he stresses, the majority of environmental legislation is of a more technical nature than proposals prepared elsewhere.

Expected proposals on extending public access to information to the EU's institutions have been in preparation for a long time and would seem to be obvious candidates for completion, given Commission President Jacques Santer's public commitment to openness. “We're amazed that nothing has been done about access to information yet, considering how Santer is pushing the transparency line,” commented a Greenpeace official.

Officially, the Commission puts its failure to complete much of the work programme down to the need to resume or deepen consultations with outside interests. But following a meeting last week with Santer, the seven major environmental lobbying groups in Brussels put a different gloss on the question.

According to the seven, including Greenpeace, the World Wide Fund for Nature and the European Environmental Bureau, “a veil of secrecy hangs over the Community institutions making it difficult to know which interests are influencing and weakening the formulation and application of EU environmental policy”.

Demanding the establishment of a special environment commission headed by Santer to coordinate policy, they claimed that “the advisory structures at the Commission with regard to environmental matters are largely controlled by anti-environmental industries”. They also underlined the view that the different Commission services continue to pull in “completely contrary directions”.

As far as the work programme for 1996 is concerned, Commission officials stress they are aiming for a “more realistic approach”.

In the meantime, they hope that the planned communication on carbon dioxide emissions from cars, the framework on environmental liability and a discussion paper on biotechnology can be completed before Brussels closes down for the Christmas holiday.

But this last issue looks set to open a whole new can of worms, given the recent controversy over whether or not genetically-modified organisms should be labelled. A clear policy on biotechnology still looks a long way off.