ECCE BRUSSELS BRIEF

GREEN WEEK SUPPLEMENT

JUNE 2003

KEY ISSUES EMERGE FROM GREEN WEEK

° ENVIRONMENTAL LIABILITY

° BATHING WATER REPORT UNVEILED 

° + LATE NEWS (END JUNE) ON ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT, OECD REPORTS ON VOLUNTARY APPROACHES TO  ENVIRONMENT POLICY,  

A general source of information on the event and these items is the web-site of the European Commission’s Directorate General for the Environment: http://europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/environment/index_en.htm

Political agreement had still not been achieved when Green Week took place.  The proposals for a Directive on Environmental Liability have been fraught with difficulty.  Environmental Liability was one of the subjects on the Agenda of the 13th June Environment Council.  Outstanding issues to resolve included scope of application of the proposal and the scope of ‘mitigating factors’ which would give grounds for exemption or limiting operator liability.  Currently a mandatory financial security system is proposed, contrary to the Commission’s initial proposal: this is opposed by a number of delegations.  The definition of protected species and habitats is a further unresolved issue.

Environmental liability background

The Commission submitted its Proposal for a Directive on environmental liability for the prevention and remedying of environmental damage to Council on 21 February 2002. Based on the polluter-pays principle, it requires operators to take preventive action where there is an imminent threat of damage and remedial action at their own expense - when damage occurs. The proposal has been a long-time in the gestation, having been strongly contested by environmental groups and individual Member States over a number of years, following publication of a Commission Green Paper on Remedying Environmental Damage (COM(93)47.  The current Proposal differentiates between certain activities (listed in Annex III) for which all damage is covered and others for which only damage to protected species and natural habitats is covered. Furthermore, it foresees the right of citizens to request that action is taken by competent authorities in cases where rights under the Directive are not being respected.

Following the adoption of the opinion of the European Parliament in May, the Presidency expressed a desire to reach a political agreement at the June Council and published a summary of issues under discussion:

• Financial security system: The Commission proposed that Member States may decide whether operations should be required to provide financial security for operational activities listed in the Proposal's annex. A number of Member States want to provide financial security through mandatory insurance schemes. The Presidency compromise proposes that mandatory insurance be introduced for certain activities after 5 years (for damage to land, water, protected species and natural habitats).
• Defence versus mitigating factors: the Commission proposed that owning a permit as proof that activities are carried out in a state-of-the-art manner should entitle an operator to exemption from liability. The Presidency is proposing that if an operator has a permit, took preventive measures and can prove that he was neither responsible for the environmental damage caused nor guilty of negligence, owning a permit can mitigate in his favour and allow him to pay lower remedial costs. But this will not provide for complete exemption.
• Subsidiary state liability: the competent authorities must ensure that operators take the necessary remedial and preventive measures. The Commission proposed that if an operator fails to do so, or is not capable of paying, the authority must take the necessary measures itself. However, some Member States consider that this should not be an obligation for them.
• Scope: delegations will debate whether or not operators should cover all prevention and remuneration costs when damage to protected species and natural habitats occurs.
• Definition of "protected species and natural habitats": some Member States feel that the Directive should only cover protected natural habitats and that protected species should be covered within the limits of these habitats. However, the Presidency supports the Commission's view that it should cover both natural habitats and protected species, as defined in the Birds and Habitats Directives
• Nuclear industry: Some Member States believe that nuclear energy should be included in the scope of the proposed Directive.
• GMOs: some Member States believe that damage caused by GMOs should be covered by the Proposal's terms of reference.

UPDATE:  At end June 2003 the full agreed text of the proposed directive on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage is now to be found on:  http://register.consilium.eu.int

The first International Conference of the "Johannesburg Renewable Energy Coalition" (JREC) at ministerial level ended today in Brussels. The one-day JREC conference was organised as part of the European Commission's annual Green Week.

JREC was founded during the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg.  It brings together over 80 countries that are willing to increase the share of renewable energy in the overall mix. German Environment Minister Juergen Trittin emphasised the role of renewable energy in poverty eradication in the developing world and to economic development in the industrialised world.  Some developing countries have to spend 80% of their income on importing fossil fuels, he stated.  Unsustainable patterns of energy production could not be overcome without new energy strategies and clear targets and deadlines.  Environment Commissioner Margot Wallstroem stated that it would be more realistic to set national and regional goals at the beginning and later arrive at international and global targets.  The Coalition plans to identify barriers to renewable energies and suggest solutions.

The latest Bathing Water report covers 13,626 seaside beaches and 5,773 fresh water areas.  In 2002, almost 96% of coastal beaches respected the Directive’s quality criteria, in particular those dealing with contamination by faecal material.  For inland bathing areas (i.e. lakes and rivers, the level of compliance was 91% in 2002.

The quality of bathing water in Member States is assessed by the European Commission in accordance with parameters set out in the 1976 Directive on Bathing Water Quality.  Two microbiological parameters, which are indicators of faecal pollution and three physico-chemical parameters (‘aesthetic paramters’ which make the water look attractive to swim in) are the minimum imperative values.  The Directive also sets out some higher guidelines which are not obligatory.  Testing of samples should be made every fortnight, plus an additional sample 14 days before the start of the locally defined bathing season.

The European Commission presented a Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council (COM (2000)581) in October 2002.  The proposal aims to improve health standards, ensure more efficient management (including greater active involvement by the public) and allow Member States greater flexibility in the way they implement the Directive.  It is hoped that the proposed standards will reduce risk of contracting gastro-enteritis and respiratory diseases as a result of bathing by a factor of 2 to 3.

European Commissioner for the Environment, Margot Wallstroem set out four priorities in relation to bathing water:

1.      The revised Directive, proposed by the Commission in October 2002, should be adopted as soon as possible.

2.      The current Directive (Directive 76/160/EEC) should be implemented as effectively as possible

3.      Efforts should be made to support those Member States affected by the floods of 2002 so that they may carry out the remedial measures to restore acceptable standards in their water quality

4.      the Commission should ensure that Member States did not use bathing bans or de-identification of bathing sites as a device to get round the Directive.

The Commission’s bathing water site has now been updated and provides the results from 1997-2002 for all 19,000 EU beaches.  Diagrams provide a picture of the long-term quality trend of the bathing areas.  Member States contribute to the report and web-site by specifying which actions have been taken in regard to urban wastewater treatment as well as mastering the effects of diffuse pollution.  Most recent result are to be found on:  http://europa.eu.int/water/water-bathing/report.html

More information about bathing water quality is also available on the Internet at: 

Austria: http://www.bmsg.gv.at/

België/Belgique:

Vlaanderen: http://www.vmm.be/          Wallonie: http://mrw.wallonie.be/

Danmark: http://www.mst.dk/

España: http://www.msc.es/

France: http://www.sante.gouv.fr/

Germany:  Bundesumweltministerium (Germany’s Ministry for the Environment): http://www.bmu.de

Baden-Württemberg: http://www.landesgesundheitsamt.de/

Bremen: http://www.bremen.de/

Brandenburg: http://www.brandenburg.de/land/mlur/bade stellen/index.htm

Hamburg: http://www.hamburg-magazin.de/fr_basee.h tm

Sachsen-Anhalt: http://www.ms.sachsen-anhalt.de/

Schleswig-Holstein: http://badewasserqualitaet.schleswig-hol stein.de/index.html/

Thüringen: http://www.thueringen.de/de/tmsfg/

Greece: http://www.minenv.gr/

Ireland: http://www.epa.ie/

Italy: www.sanita.it/

Luxembourg: http://www.mev.etat.lu/

Netherlands: www.waterland.net/zwemwater/ 

Portugal: http://www.inag.pt/

Sweden: http://www.environ.se/

United Kingdom:

England and Wales: http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/    Scotland: http://www.sepa.org.uk/

UPDATE: The European Economic and Social Committee has now published its OPINION on the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the quality of bathing water (COM(2002) 581 final - 2002/0254 COD)  Access http://esc.eu.int for further details.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT - REPORT HIGHLIGHTS MEMBER STATE FAILURES IN IMPLEMENTATION

The Commission's 5 Years Report "On the Application and Effectiveness of the EIA Directive(Directive 85/337/EEC as amended by Directive 97/11/EC): How successful are the Member States in implementing the EIA Directive?" demonstrates that after fifteen years of application, the EIA Directive is not yet fully implemented in all Member States.

The report emphasises that Member States must improve implementation:  

(1) all Member States have not yet transposed the amendment to the original EIA Directive although the deadline was more than four years ago.  

(2) about 30% of open infringement cases concern gaps identified by the Commission in national laws intended to transpose the Directive.  

Causes of infringement:

Most infringement cases (around 65%), however, concern bad application of the Directive in relation to individual projects.

The main types of infringement cases are:

·         lacking or insufficient determination of whether EIA is necessary ("screening"),

·         carrying out EIA only after having granted development consent,

·         setting too high thresholds for determining whether an EIA is needed,

·         not covering all project categories required, non-effective public consultation and

·         non-compliance with the EIA in the development consent procedure.

The Member State with the biggest number of infringement procedures open at present is Spain. The only Member State with no current open cases is Denmark.

European Environment Commissioner Margot Wallstroem emphasised that the Commission will continue to take all necessary legal action to ensure that the EIA Directive is correctly and fully implemented, including taking Member States to the European Court of Justice when needed. They also intend to prepare interpretative guidance for some problematic areas to advise the Member States when they implement the Directive. They will increase capacity-building and training for the authorities responsible for dealing with individual EIAs and finally, further research will be needed - for example, to better understand how Member States decide which projects have to undergo an EIA and which not.

Future plans:

An amendment to the EIA Directive is not currently on the agenda for several reasons. One is the recently adopted amendment that introduces additional obligations with regard to public participation and access to justice (in line with the Aarhus Convention; (Directive 2003/35/EC)) and which will have to be transposed by the Member States within two years from its entry into force. Another reason is the adoption of the SEA Directive on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment that will have to be transposed by Member States by 21 July 2004. It is likely that the strong link with the EIA Directive will strengthen the administrative capacities of the respective authorities in the Member States in their assessment procedures and will complement in many cases the application and better implementation of the EIA Directive. Implementation of the Strategic Environmental Assessment, SEA, Directive may also reveal additional difficulties in environmental assessment practices that need to be taken into account in a future amendment of the EIA Directive. An amendment of the EIA Directive may be necessary in due course to further help implementation.

The Commission states that it is keen to improve implementation of the Directive and tackle implementation gaps. It intends to do this by continuously monitoring the Directive's enforcement and by preparing guidance in consultation with Member States, the new Member States and stakeholders such as NGOs, local and regional authorities and industry. It will also carry out targeted research and encourage capacity building programmes.

The full text of the report is to be made available at the following web address: http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/eia/home.htm  The Annual Surveys may be found at web address: http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/law/index.htm

OECD REPORT QUESTIONS EFFECTIVENESS OF VOLUNTARY APPROACHES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY

Voluntary approaches in environmental policy are increasingly popular in a number of countries.  A new OECD report “Voluntary Approaches for Environmental Policy: Effectiveness, Efficiency and Usage in Policy Mixes”, provides an in-depth assessment of the use of voluntary approaches, building on a number of new case studies and an extensive search of the available literature.  It questions the environmental effectiveness and economic efficiency of such an approach and notes that there are few cases where such approaches have improved the environment beyond a business-as-usual baseline.  The study of policy mixes indicates that combining a voluntary approach with a tax or a tradable permit system can trigger quite significant additional administrative costs. In addition, the environmental impacts of the other instrument can be weakened.

Subscribers and readers at subscribing institutions can access the online edition via SourceOECD, the OEC online library, whilst non-subscribers can purchase the PDF e-book and/or paper copy via the Online bookshop. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development :http://www.oecd.org

PUBLICATION OF COMMISSION COMMUNCATION (AND CONSULTATION) ON INTEGRATED POLLUTION PREVENTION AND CONTROL (IPPC) DIRECTIVE

A review of implementation of the 1996 IPPC Directive shows that most governments are not doing enough to ensure industry compliance with EU pollution control standards:

Background

In 1996, the Council adopted the IPPC Directive (96/61/EC). The purpose is to achieve a high level of environmental protection through integrated prevention and control of the pollution arising from a wide range of industrial and agricultural activities.  Member States are responsible for implementing the Directive.  Integrated pollution prevention and control is based on a permit system for installations.

Since October 1999, the IPPC Directive has applied to new installations as well as to  "existing" ones, (i.e. those built before 2000) where the operators intend to carry out changes that may have significant negative effects on human health and the environment. Member States have a transition period until October 2007 to ensure that all the other existing installations fully comply with the Directive.

The permit system aims to ensure that:

·       operators of installations take preventive measures against pollution, in particular applying "Best Available Techniques", 

• no "significant pollution" is caused,
• waste that cannot be avoided is recovered or safely disposed of,
• energy is used efficiently,
• accidents are prevented and their consequences are limited,
• the site is returned to a satisfactory state when the installation closes.

Invitation to consultation:

In the Communication, the Commission lists a number of Directives and policy tools that interact with the IPPC Directive and invites stakeholders to give opinions on whether additional measures are needed to ensure that the combination of instruments can achieve sustainable patterns of production. It is also ready to consider reviewing some of the thresholds that determine which installations need a permit, and to consider including other activities on the list.

Finally, there is to be a European website, which will give information on emissions to air and water from the installations covered by the Directive. This is due to come on line in February 2004.

In the first half of 2004, the Commission is to report to the EU Institutions on the results of the consultation launched by the Communication, and on Member States' official replies to a general implementation survey. That report may be accompanied by proposals.  The full text of the Communication “
On the Road to Sustainable Production Progress in implementing Council Directive 96/61/EC concerning integrated pollution prevention and control “ and more information is available on the IPPC Directive web site: http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/ippc/index.htm    

Consultation web site: http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/-environment/ippc/ippc_consultation.htm

EUROPE PARLIAMENT BRIEF SETS OUT MANDATORY TARGETS PROPOSED FOR PACKAGING AND PACKAGING WASTE

MEP Dorette CORBEY of the Netherlands is tabling a draft legislative resolution on packaging waste on behalf of Parliament’s Environment Committee.   The Committee restates its determination to shorten the timetable for requiring European governments to recycle and recover packaging waste.  The committee is calling on Council to review a range of issues. MEPs left many points in the Council common position untouched, but did reintroduce specific demands on timetables, the prevention of packaging waste, exports of such waste and exemptions to the directive.

Recycling and recovery targets: The committee accepts minimum targets for recovery and recycling of packaging waste contained in the Council's common position but is only prepared to lengthen the timetable in the original Commission proposal by six months. The Committee sets down targets as follows: Overall target for recovery of packaging waste: 60% as a minimum by weight no later than 31 December 2006 Overall target for recycling of packaging waste: 55% as a minimum by weight no later than 31 December 2006 Material-specific targets for recycling of packaging waste no later than 31 December 2006 (by weight): glass - 60%; paper and board - 60%; metals - 50%; plastics - 22.5%; wood - 15%. 

Derogations to targets  The Environment Committee supports the Commission's original proposal to give Greece, Ireland and Portugal an extension of the deadline until 30 June 2009. It also proposes an amendment stressing that the directive must be implemented by the future Member States. 

Prevention of packaging waste  Following much discussion within both the packaging industry and Parliament about the kind of prevention policy that should be introduced, the Committee proposes an amendment to state that from 1 January 2004 new packaging may only be put on the market if the producer has sought to minimise its environmental impact as far as possible. This applies to new packaging for both new and existing products. Member States must also ensure that other preventive measures are put into effect, such as national programmes. 

Exports of packaging waste:  MEPs in the committee say that packaging waste exported from the Community may only count towards targets if the exporter can prove the recovery or recycling operation met the same conditions as those laid down by Community law.  Report on the Council common position for adopting a European Parliament and Council directive amending Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste (14843/1/2002 - C5-0082/2003 - 2001/0291(COD))  Doc.: A5-0200/2003 Procedure: Codecision procedure (2nd reading)

                                                                                                                      D E Maxwell, 28th June 2003

ECCE Contact Details | ECCE Homepage