Striking the correct legislative balance

Date: 29/05/1997

By Michael Mann

THERE is nothing like images of devastated forests and lifeless lakes to stir the passions of the 'green' lobby. Likewise, the reappearance of 'summer smog' brings home to city dwellers the degree of air pollution still blighting many areas of the EU.

But finding the correct legislative balance to deal with such problems throws up a double conundrum.

As often as not, those regions generating the pollution in the first place are not those most affected by it. Secondly, industry fears over-regulation could harm its competitive position in an increasingly tough global market.

After a slow start to her five-year term of office, Environment Commissioner Ritt Bjerregaard has managed over the past few months to persuade her European Commission colleagues to back a number of major legislative proposals which are certain to have a major impact on large swathes of EU industry, with relatively little fuss.

Last November's proposal to cut emissions of 'volatile organic compounds' (VOCs) from solvents used in industry by two-thirds is a typical example.

“It really just slipped through and that is probably why we are having so many problems sorting it out now,” said one member state official.

The products covered by Bjerregaard's initiative are widely used in paints for coating wood, metal and plastic, cleaning and degreasing metal and plastic, and for textile cleaning. Their drawback is that they are also a major cause of ground-level ozone or summer smog. In 1995, there were over 3,000 recorded cases of the legal limit being exceeded across the Union.

Bjerregaard's initiative seeks to reduce emissions from 2.2 million tonnes per year to 0.7 million tonnes by 2007, with 20 different industrial sectors affected.

“This is a major proposal which will cause severe difficulties to a number of member states because of its effects on small businesses. We still do not really know what it involves, what we will have to do and how much it will cost,” said an official.

While they may fear the cost, countries with major ozone problems - not least Germany, the Netherlands and the UK - will appreciate the potential results.

Although the Dutch are still looking for agreement on a common position at next month's meeting of environment ministers, the second half of the year looks a more likely bet.

Even more controversy will be generated by the Commission's strategy to combat the effects of acidification, adopted in March. Its aim is highly ambitious: to reduce the area of EU land affected by acid rain to 4.5 million hectares in 2010. Without the proposed changes, the damaged area could total up to 8.7 million hectares.

The range of potential measures is impressive indeed; so is the cost, an estimated 7 billion ecu per annum. In mitigation, the Commission believes the savings made would more than cancel this out.

The main elements of the strategy include the establishment of national emission ceilings for each acid rain pollutant; ratification of the United Nations protocol on reducing sulphur emissions; a directive limiting the sulphur content of heavy fuel oils; a review of the large combustion plant directive; designation of the Baltic and North Seas as sulphur dioxide control areas; and the promotion of measures to reduce pollution in central and eastern Europe.

“Preliminary discussions have brought a mixed reaction. People like it and hate it at the same time. Obviously the strategy has greater appeal for the Nordic countries, whose ecosystems are most under threat, than for the western and southern states which will have to bear the brunt of the costs,” said an official.

Meanwhile, Bjerregaard's officials are looking to World Health Organisation recommendations as the basis for new air quality standards currently being drawn up.

Following months of consultation with both industry and environmental groups, Bjerregaard is now gathering the views of other departments internally in the hope that the full Commission can agree the measures this summer.

Industry lobbies have welcomed the Commission's willingness to consult them, but believe firm targets should not be set until more convincing data has been collected.

But Commission officials insist that they are merely respecting undertakings already made in a framework directive agreed during 1996 to set targets for sulphur dioxide (SO₂), nitrogen oxide (NO₂), lead and poisonous dust known as 'particulates'. Other substances will be covered in proposals due during 1998 and 1999.