The road to a green and pleasant EU gets harder

Date: 29/05/1997

By Michael Mann

SINCE the EU's 'green revolution' of the Seventies, life has grown progressively more difficult for the defenders of Europe's environment.

Two decades ago, when EU environment legislation was still in its infancy, the scope for regulation was enormous.

One former official in what later became the European Commission's Directorate-General for the environment (DGXI) recalls with only a hint of irony: “If we felt there was a gap in EU laws, we could bash something together and it would sail its way through the institutions.”

But current Environment Commissioner Ritt Bjerregaard has a more delicate balancing act to perform. Much of the basic legislation is already in place and the Commission's priorities have shifted towards the completion of the single market and the maintenance of 'competitiveness' - the EU's favourite buzz-word.

The results of the Commission's labours seem to please no one. Business leaders claim they are being constricted by ever-increasing volumes of red tape, while green campaigners complain Europe's ecology is being sacrificed in the unceasing quest for growth.

But the fact that nobody is satisfied with new proposals perhaps demonstrates that DGXI is getting somewhere near finding the middle ground.

Certainly, there has been a move towards greater consultation with those whose lives and business opportunities will be most affected by new directives.

This has forced environmentalists to become more mainstream, and has also persuaded business of the benefits of playing the 'green' card, adding to their sales by assuring consumers of the ecologically friendly credentials of their products.

After a slow start, recent months have seen Bjerregaard force through a number of major environmental initiatives, many of which could have huge implications for the way companies operate in Europe.

But it is a measure of the new situation and Commission President Jacques Santer's philosophy of 'doing less, but better' that much of what appears does so in the form of Green Papers and consultation documents.

While this move away from the regulatory approach may come as a major relief to EU industry, the myriad of business groups lobbying the EU institutions cannot rest on their laurels.

Before the end of her tour of duty in 1999, Bjerregaard has several major pieces of far-reaching legislation lined up which could have a big impact on strategic planning in almost every sector. Some of these demonstrate EU efforts to set the international agenda. Others are a direct result of international agreements to which the Union is a signatory.

The car and oil industries have been highly vocal in their criticism of efforts by MEPs to make them bear the brunt of commitments to reduce air pollution.

Proposals snaking their way through the legislative process will change the face of the automotive industry in the first decade of the next century. It will come under even greater pressure if Transport Commissioner Neil Kinnock can persuade people there are genuine alternatives to shifting freight by road.

But the transport sector will not be alone in having to change its ways to respect whatever targets are set this December in Kyoto to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.

Energy ministers are already studying the practicality of EU undertakings to cut emissions by 15&percent; by 2010 compared to 1990 levels.

Chemical companies and oil refiners are also in for a rough time as they try to limit the impact of major initiatives to reduce acid rain, ground-level ozone and urban air pollution - all very visible signs of the problems generated by modern industrial processes.

In its battle to convince the doubters of the need for further regulation, the Commission is having to use new and more nuanced tactics. As the internal battle over the revised landfill directive showed, it is no longer sufficient simply to propose legislation for its own sake. Each proposal is now accompanied by a detailed economic analysis of the costs and benefits to both industry and society.

For years, the Commission has been looking unsuccessfully for a consensus on how to use economic measures - particularly taxes - to control environmentally unfriendly activities. Failure to agree has recently pushed it in the direction of seeking voluntary undertakings from industry not to cause unnecessary pollution.

This is insufficient to ensure the type of protection sought by environmentalists, recently buoyed up by indications that the new British government might look more sympathetically at Taxation Commissioner Mario Monti's plans for a wide-ranging energy tax.

Less likely is any agreement on a pan-EU system to ensure environmental responsibility, forcing polluters to pay for any damage they cause. UK opposition to this plan is mirrored in both Germany and France.

Meanwhile, the Commission continues to wrestle with the increasingly complex web of national fiscal measures, designed to help the environment but as often as not merely preventing the single market from operating effectively.

Despite Bjerregaard's obvious zeal to fill the remaining gaps in EU legislation, her efforts are sometimes handicapped by a lack of coherence within the Commission itself.

Biotechnology was singled out long ago as one of the Union's priority sectors, but four years on from the Delors White Paper on competitiveness, the Union lacks a single policy on genetically-modified foods.

For the more innovative members of the business community, even greater regulation can present new commercial opportunities. Planned restrictions on the landfilling of waste and moves to force householders to sort hazardous refuse may worry local authorities, but the burgeoning waste treatment industry sees new possibilities for profit.

In the same way, the potential for western businesses to cash in on the disastrous environmental situation in the central and eastern European countries (CEECs) which have applied to join the EU is enormous.

Environmental clean-up technologies remain a growth area, and it is clear that major surgery is needed in the CEECs if they are serious about Union membership. A recent Commission report estimated that more than 100 billion ecu needs to be invested in cleaning up the region's industry and services.

But there is a school of thought which believes the Union must get its own house in order before undertaking anything more ambitious. The last annual report on the implementation of environmental law showed that Italy, for example, had only transposed 75&percent; of EU directives on to its statute books.

Rome is not alone in its lax attitude to putting good intentions into practice. The Commission's patience finally snapped earlier this year, when, for the first time, it used new powers acquired under the Maastricht Treaty and threatened to fine both Italy and Germany for failing to respect legislation.

The spectre of an embarrassing court case - and financial penalties - seemed to work wonders. The Commission is now satisfied the rules are being adhered to in three of the five test cases brought.

The success of environmental legislation also depends to a large extent on the success of DGXI in lending a green edge to the work of other departments.

Besides Monti's tax initiatives and new transport policies from Kinnock, there is even a gradual move towards 'greening' the Common Agricultural Policy, the largest area of EU expenditure.

And industry will never be allowed to forget its environmental responsibilities while the European Parliament is there to keep it on its toes. Already enjoying greater power since Maastricht, Parliament's muscles are likely to expand further after the treaty review process is completed at next month's Amsterdam summit.