Industry pressure delays clean-air plan

By Anna McLauchlin

Date: 23/06/05

THe European Commission plans to reduce the number of premature deaths from air pollution could be postponed as a result of industry lobbying, European Voice has learnt

An internal dispute has sprung up between the Commission's environment and industry departments following fierce lobbying from UNICE, the Europan association representing big business. UNICE argues that the scientific theory that air pollution causes premature death is not clear enough to warrant extra industry investment.

The Commission had planned to adopt a communication on air pollution - known as a 'thematic strategy' - on 13 July. This would set 'ambition levels' for the reduction of five air pollutants by 2020, in all contributing sectors including agriculture, energy and transport.

A second regulation would set national reduction targets for the emission of fine particles, which the Commission's Clean Air for Europe (CAFÉ) programme estimates is alone responsible for almost 350,000 premature deaths every year in the EU.

In its communication, the Commission's environment department (DG Environment), which drew up the original plans, has outlined three different reduction options, whose cost to industry would range from €6 billion to €15bn per year.

But in a letter to Commission President José Manuel Barroso sent on 7 June, UNICE Secretary-General Philippe de Buck argued that the targets were "arbitrary" and "unnecessarily costly". As a result, Barroso withdrew the issue from the agenda pending further notice.

"There are huge uncertainties about the attainability and the costs of improving air quality further," a UNICE spokesman said, highlighting a recent opinion by EU environmental science committee SCHER.

In March, SCHER published an opinion on air quality standards, which found that any policy based on the link between fine particles and health risks would be "surrounded by uncertainties".

The UNICE spokeswoman added that the cost of even the lowest target suggested by the Commission would be too high compared to the benefits seen.

UNICE estimates that already industry will have to pay €66bn per year over the next 15 years on implementing existing EU legislation on air quality.

"At such high ambitions, the incremental increase in costs vastly outweighs the incremental increase in benefits," she said. "It's not our intention to delay policy but we want the best return for our investment."

But a senior source at the executive said that the cost of its proposals come in way below those of similar laws in the US.

"The US, with half the population of the EU, has imposed legislation totalling an extra $12bn (E9.8bn) for industry, beyond what the EU is proposing," he said. "The industry cannot say these costs will hurt their competitiveness."

Stefan Scheuer, policy director at the European Environmental Bureau (EEB), said: "Avoiding tens of thousands of premature deaths caused by air pollution and saving millions of hectares of valuable ecosystems from damage by pollutant depositis are worth the investment." EEB estimates cost benefits at @31bn-140bn.

Following Barroso's announcement in February that the Commission would focus on growth and jobs, some feel that the other pillars of EU lawmaking are taking a back seat to businesses' interests.

"If we're going to get to the point where UNICE writes all our laws, what's the point in having a civil service?" asked one disgruntled member of DG Environment.

The air pollution strategy is the first of seven thematic strategies planned under the EU's 6th environment action programme. A strategy on marine protection is expected in late July or early September, and the other five - on soil protection, sustainable use of pesticides, urban environment, sustainable use and management of resources and waste recycling - are expected in the autumn.

Lobbying from industry may delay the adoption by the European Commission of a Communication on air pollution - due to take place on 13 July 2005.