European Parliament: Environmental Champion?

Satu Hassi MEP

Representatives of the European Parliament often like to think of the institution as an environmental champion. Given that environment is consistently cited as a high priority by European citizens in Eurobarometer polls, this aspiration is understandable.

Looking at the track record of the current legislature, however, the results are more of a mixed bag than a shining example of improving protection of the environment and public health. Moreover, it is difficult to generalise the position of the EP, as it is often determined by only a restricted number of (changing) Members, with a key role above all for the rapporteur on each dossier.

That said, in general the EP has valid claims to have championed climate protection.  The EP was first to adopt a position in favour of a 30% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, and in its last resolution on the topic recognised that industrialised countries as a group need to deliver reductions in the high end of the 25-40% range recommended by UN scientific panel. It also accepted, in its resolution at least, that these reductions must be achieved domestically.

Also in climate legislation, the Parliament has on the whole aimed to step up the ambition of Commission proposals. This was most pertinently the case as regards inclusion of aviation emissions to the Emissions Trading System, but applied also in the revision of the ETS scheme and in establishing rules for achieving reductions outside the traded sectors, which were both part of the climate package adopted in December 2008.

Regrettably, the EP was not able to fend off many of the loopholes and watering down forced through by the Council, in particular regarding free allocation of permits to manufacturing industry and overly generous access to exporting emissions reductions outside Europe.

In many ways, the limits to the EP championing the environmental agenda are also set by the general characteristics of the EU institutional framework. Environmental legislation is deliberated using the co-decision procedure, where the European Parliament has equal in power compared to the Council of Ministers.  However the system favours those who are against ambitious policies, or do not care whether a result is fails to be achieved.

This became acutely apparent in the deliberations for the climate package, when Council decision-making was deferred to the European Council acting in unanimity. Given the urgency of achieving EU climate legislation, the EP was not in a position to reject the loopholes agreed by the EU heads of state and government.

While the EP has tended to be on the progressive side on climate policy, car emissions have been a flagrant exception to the rule. The rules on average vehicle CO2 emissions that were proposed by the Commission - already stepping back from previously stated ambitious levels - were further watered down in the co-decision process with the active support of representatives of all three largest EP political groups. From an environmental perspective, it is very likely that the market and consumer preference for less fuel-hungry cars will drive average emissions down faster than the legislation that was agreed as a result.

The handling of the car industry with kid gloves equally applies to air quality legislation. The Parliament insisted on securing exemptions for sports-utility vehicles from air pollutant limit values and gave in on limits for diesel vehicles in negotiations with the Council on passenger vehicle pollutant emissions.

The legislation, agreed in first reading based on a compromise between the three largest groups at the committee stage, meant in practice fixing the status quo technology until 2014/2015 with limit values twice as high as those in force in California today. On air quality legislation in general this legislature has done more to weaken rather than strengthen the rules in place, apart from targets for 2020 or further.

When it comes to chemicals, one needs to distinguish not only between general laws and specific restrictions, but also between different applications of chemicals. For specific restrictions, with very few exceptions, the EP has a clear track-record of strengthening Commission proposals (e.g. phthalates in toys, chromium VI in cement) or defending restrictions (e.g. the court case to annul the exemption for brominated flame retardant in electrical and electronic equipment).

As far as REACH is concerned, on the one hand, a large EPP-ED, PSE and ALDE majority actively reduced a number of provisions in order to accommodate industry concerns (e.g. data requirements for low volume substances), while a simple left majority on the other hand managed to somewhat strengthen the substitution requirements as called for by NGOs.

An important dossier was also the revision of the authorisation system of pesticides, in which the EP, led by a Green rapporteur, not only fended off massive opposition by the chemical industry, the farming sector and certain Member States, but even managed to achieve significant improvements, giving more flexibility to Member States to restrict uses of pesticides and strengthening the criteria for authorisation.

Concerning waste policy, Parliament (almost) consistently fights for higher recycling targets, but remains weak on quantative prevention, and failed to stop the Commission's proposal to reclassify incineration with a certain energy efficiency as “recovery”.

A recent academic study has concluded that the current legislature has adopted less ambitious amendments in the field of environment than the previous one[i]. It has also tended to favour derogations from general rules, while supporting long term, aspirational goals.

This reflects the changes in political majorities but also the active presence of industrial lobbying in the EP decision-making. While national media still tend to ignore the EP decision-making, hardly reporting on MEPs voting behaviour, Members seem to be held more accountable by the industry lobbies than by the public.