EEB S PRIORITIES FOR THE EUROPEAN UNION FOR 2015 ADDRESSED TO THE GOVERNMENTS OF LATVIA AND LUXEMBOURG AS WELL AS THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Transcription

1 EEB S PRIORITIES FOR THE EUROPEAN UNION FOR 2015 ADDRESSED TO THE GOVERNMENTS OF LATVIA AND LUXEMBOURG AS WELL AS THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 10 July Sustainable development as the overarching framework 2. Avoiding a harmful EU-US trade and investment partnership 3. Reducing air pollution 4. Fighting climate change and improving energy security 5. Creating a circular economy through better resource management 6. Improving environmental governance 7. Avoiding harm to biodiversity and ecosystems 8. Phasing out hazardous chemicals

2 INTRODUCTION In this background paper, the European Environmental Bureau presents its views on those issues that are expected to dominate the environmental policy agenda in Following a relatively quiet year in 2014 during which a number of files were closed at the beginning of the year including for example invasive alien species, few new initiatives were launched and attention went to the European Parliament elections and the installation of a new Commission, we expect legislative work to pick up again at full speed in Apart from engaging with specific legislative files as detailed below, the election of a new Parliament and appointment of a new Commission provide the opportunity for the EU to take a fresh look at the overall direction of economic development in Europe over the coming years in the light of sustainability considerations by reviewing strategies such as Europe 2020 and the EU Sustainable Development Strategy. On the international level, the year is expected to be quite intensive with parallel negotiations leading towards, on the one hand, the adoption of a new international agreement on climate change at the UNFCCC meeting in Paris towards the end of the year, where Europe s leadership is greatly needed, and on the other, agreement on a set of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which should provide the framework for the aforementioned review of Europe s economic development path. The priorities indicated here may evolve over the coming months, but the paper nonetheless gives a broad indication of the environmental and environment-related issues that we consider will or should be on the political agenda in 2015 and how we believe they should be addressed. 1. SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AS THE OVERARCHING FRAMEWORK FOR THE EUROPEAN UNION Europe has for a number of years had some ambivalence towards the concept of sustainable development. At a rhetorical level, Europe strongly endorses the concept, presents itself as a leader in the global debate on sustainable development; and indeed has been one of the more progressive forces among the developed countries in that debate. On the other hand, since the economic crisis began in 2008, European leaders have increasingly tended to prioritise short-term economic considerations over environmental (and social) ones, leading to a slowdown in environmental policy initiatives. Furthermore, Europe continues to consume considerably more than its fair share of the Earth s resources, without demonstrating a serious resolve to reduce its ecological footprint within the short to medium term to the extent required to allow the poorest countries the environmental space to develop. With Europe s economic difficulties and the preoccupation with them likely to continue in 2015 but also with prospects of recovery in some countries, it is crucial to recognize the link between the sustainability of the economy and the health of the environment, and that an exit from the economic crisis must take full account of social and environmental considerations. Heightened concerns over energy security, following the Ukrainian crisis, 2

3 coupled with increased awareness around security of supply of food and raw materials for European industry, have strengthened the realization that continuing our consumption at current levels is no longer an option and that a comprehensive greening of the economy is essential. With international negotiations on a set of sustainable development goals expected to reach a conclusion in late 2015, it is essential that Europe steps up its commitment to developing a set of universally applicable goals in which environmental concerns are far more fully reflected than they were in the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). The SDGs should go beyond the MDGs by, inter alia, making respect for planetary boundaries a central priority and thus address the over-consumption in the developed world, including Europe. The SDGs provide an opportunity and indeed an obligation for Europe to look at its own model of development and steer it in a sustainable direction. It should also support developing countries to achieve a decent standard of living without repeating the mistakes made by the developed world. As Europe continues to follow through on the outcomes of the Rio+20 Conference, 2015, declared as the Year of Development, should be the year in which sustainable development is restored as the overarching framework for all policies in the EU. Europe s most prominent high-level political strategy, the Europe 2020 Strategy on competitivity and growth has some elements relating to environmental sustainability but can hardly be considered to be a sustainable development strategy. On the other hand, the official EU Sustainable Development Strategy has been given little attention, with the Commission having resolutely ignored calls by the Council for its review. Having regard to the EU s endorsement of the Rio+20 outcome document The Future We Want and notably its paragraph 98 1, it is essential that that the SDS is revised, updated to take account of the implementation and monitoring of SDGs and given a central status in policymaking. Furthermore, the Europe 2020 strategy should be transformed and brought in line with sustainable development objectives. Following the Rio+20 conference, EU Member States indicated a wish to see steps taken to reflect its outcome within the EU. Under the Cyprus Presidency (2012), the European Council called for the review of the EU Sustainable Development Strategy (SDS) as soon as possible and at the latest in 2014, and for the commitments in the Rio+20 outcome document to be implemented through the SDS and the Europe 2020 Strategy. The Council also stressed the need to consider and review, as deemed necessary and on a case by case basis, all other relevant EU and national policies, strategies and programmes, and to implement through them the Rio+20 outcomes and the upcoming Sustainable Development Goals will be a crucial year for following through on these demands. The Commission s public consultation on the Europe 2020 strategy is expected to conclude in autumn 2014 and the Commission is expected to come forward with new proposals in early The SDG 1 Paragraph 98 states as follows: We encourage regional, national, subnational and local authorities as appropriate to develop and utilize sustainable development strategies as key instruments for guiding decisionmaking and implementation of sustainable development at all levels... 3

4 negotiations will enter their final phase and reach a conclusion by September The emerging SDGs should guide not only the Commission s proposals concerning the Europe 2020 Strategy but also the long overdue revision and updating of the EU SDS. At a more operational level, the SDGs and revised EU SDS should set a new context for the Commission s internal impact assessment process, which in practice appears to have had the effect of reducing the ambition of Commission legislative proposals aimed at protecting the environment rather than mitigating those legislative proposals that threaten it. In 2011 the EU embarked on a new approach to economic governance through the economic semester. The primary driver for this exercise was the euro-crisis and the need to restore investors confidence in the euro. The focus in 2011 was therefore strongly on balancing national budgets and cutting deficits. In the subsequent years, the focus of the semester became broader, aiming to align national budgets and national reform programmes with the EU 2020 objectives. In 2015, it will be important to build on this trend and ensure that this tool is further developed and improved. First of all, the process should become more transparent and democratic with a stronger role for the European Parliament. Secondly, it should be used to green the economy, inter alia through shifting the tax base from labour to pollution and resources and through phasing out environmentally harmful subsidies, while protecting against adverse social effects and short sighted cuts in investments in environmental protection and public services. We also strongly support to integrate environmental accounting in the national budgets. The EEB therefore calls on the Latvian and Luxembourg Presidencies to: Lead the process on the concrete transformation of the current unsustainable model of economic development in the EU, including consumption and production patterns, to an economy that respects planetary limits; Call on the Commission to prepare the revision of the EU SDS, inter alia in the light of the SDGs and the latest scientific information on the state of the environment, with a view to it serving as the over-arching strategic framework for Europe; Encourage the new European Commission to use the foreseen revision of the Europe 2020 Strategy to align it with true sustainability principles and react to its proposals once published; Ensure that the European semester is used to maximum effect to promote the green and fair economy, most importantly through socially just environmental fiscal reform and the removal of environmentally harmful subsidies; Ensure coherence between all European policies and strategies and (global) sustainable development objectives, inter alia by seeking a strengthened role for environmental sustainability considerations in the Commission s internal impact assessment process. 2. AVOIDING A HARMFUL EU-US TRADE AND INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP (TTIP) The United States and the European Union kicked off their negotiations on a trade and investment agreement, known as the Transatlantic Free Trade Agreement (TAFTA) in the 4

5 US and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) in the EU, in the summer of It looks likely that the Commission will need most if not all of 2015 to continue the negotiations, even if the new European Commission has the same level of political commitment to TTIP as the current one. In their public announcements, both parties noted that trade tariffs in the United States and European Union are already low, and that the proposed deal will focus in particular on "regulatory issues and non-tariff trade barriers". The process leading to the launch of TTIP negotiations has been dominated by attempts to eliminate regulatory distinctions for the sake of narrow business interests. Industry representatives, organized since 1995 as the Transatlantic Business Dialogue, recently renamed the Transatlantic Business Council, have pushed for the creation of a new mechanisms of governance and procedures called regulatory cooperation that aim at harmonization of divergent standards and elimination of trade irritants with the singular goal of easing their commercial activities. This framework seriously threatens to weaken critical consumer and environmental safeguards, and may also conflict with the democratic principle that those living with the results of regulatory standards citizens of our countries should be able to set those standards through a democratic process, even when doing so results in divergent standards that businesses may find inconvenient. It is important to note that even regulatory cooperation regarding the implementation of laws, e.g. on chemicals, may slow down the achievement of environmental objectives Just as important, a potential agreement between the United States and EU must not under any circumstance include an investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism. Investors should not be empowered to directly challenge sovereign governments over public interest policies in offshore tribunals which are typically comprised of three private sector attorneys, skirting the well-functioning domestic court systems and robust property rights protections in the United States and European Union. The inclusion of such extreme provisions in prior trade and investment deals has enabled powerful interests, from tobacco companies to corporate polluters, to use investor-state dispute resolution to challenge and undermine consumer, public health and environmental protections. Investor-state tribunals have ordered taxpayers to compensate foreign corporations with billions of dollars for the domestic, non-discriminatory enforcement of such protections. To avoid such overreaching procedural and substantive investor privileges, greater than those afforded to domestic firms in either the United States or the EU, any deal must exclude investor-state dispute resolution. It is noteworthy that Australia and the US in their recently signed trade agreement did not include such a provision and an increasing number of countries is opposing this. Finally, it is also essential that a proposal from the EU to introduce a streamlined procedure to amend the sectoral annexes of TTIP or to add new ones, through a simplified mechanism not entailing domestic ratification procedure, is rejected since this would allow negotiators to simply postpone agreements on some of the most controversial issues and include them later without the scrutiny of the European Parliament or Member States. Whereas the EU-US negotiations are at a relatively early stage, negotiations on a comprehensive economic and trade agreement (CETA) between the EU and Canada have been concluded, and in those negotiations it has been agreed to include a provision on 5

6 investor-state dispute resolution, despite the Commission s Sustainability Impact Assessment advising against this, which is a matter of great concern, in particular since it is the EU in those negotiations which is insisting on this the most. EU Ministers will mostly likely need to decide in 2015, along with the European Parliament, if they will support this deal or not. The EEB therefore calls upon the Latvian and Luxembourg Presidencies to: Reject the almost agreed deal between the EU and Canada (CETA); Insist the Commission opens up the information about the ongoing TTIP negotiations, organizes public consultations on all relevant issues (in particular proposals for regulatory cooperation and a living agreement ) and schedule in a pause and reflect moment in the negotiations on TTIP following the completion of the sustainability impact assessment that includes the option to discontinue the negotiations. 3. REDUCING AIR POLLUTION Air pollution is the leading environmental cause of deaths in the European Union (EU). Each year, over 400,000 Europeans die prematurely because of air pollution. This comes on top of illnesses, reduced quality of life, extra medication and hospitalisations and around hundred million of lost working days. In cities, more than 90% of people are exposed to levels of air pollution above the World Health Organisation s (WHO) recommended levels. The health-related economic costs of air pollution are enormous, amounting to between 330 and 940 billion for the entire EU in the year 2010 alone. This includes 15 billion from lost workdays and 4 billion from healthcare costs. The latter are only linked to treatments of chronic bronchitis while the total health bill is likely to be substantially higher. Air pollution also damages Europe s nature and biodiversity. Almost two thirds of the total EU area is under severe threat from nitrogen eutrophication and 200,000 km 2 of sensitive forests and freshwater ecosystems still suffer from excessive acidification. Agricultural crops and natural vegetation are damaged by high levels of ground-level ozone. Other air pollution damage includes deterioration of historical and modern buildings all over Europe. On 18 December 2013, the European Commission adopted a package of proposals to improve air quality in the EU. The package includes a long-awaited revision of the National Emission Ceilings (NEC) Directive and a proposal to address emissions from medium scale combustion (MCP) installations. The EEB welcomes both initiatives but regrets the poor level of ambition of the overall new strategy, which will leave considerable health and environmental damage after In particular: The proposed NEC targets for 2020 are extremely weak. The emission levels proposed are even less ambitious than those under a business-as-usual scenario, i.e. levels that EU Member States will achieve anyway merely by implementing their obligations under existing EU and national legislation; 6

7 For 2025, no legally binding targets are proposed, which will result in further delays to cut air pollution. The 2030 targets are not only too late but they are also far from sufficient to achieve the EU s air quality objectives as set out in the 7 th Environment Action Programmes (EAP). If the current proposal was to be adopted without changes, 260,000 premature deaths would still occur in the year This is more than half of today s death levels. As shown by all cost-benefit analyses prepared for the revision of the Directive, it is not only possible but also socio-economically profitable to aim for the most ambitious emission reduction scenarios. The Commission missed the opportunity to include NEC emission reduction commitments for mercury, a global pollutant with severe adverse impacts on human health and the environment. The inclusion of mercury targets would help deliver significant benefits for human health, ecosystems, wildlife populations and the environment. The introduction of EU-wide standards for medium scale combustion plants are welcome but should be strengthened in light of current best available techniques. Their entry into force should be brought forward, and the authorisation and monitoring regime improved. Given the widespread damage from air pollution to health, environment and society at large and high associated economic costs, it is essential that the Environment Council will in 2015 support more significant cuts in air pollution both in the short and medium term. The EEB calls upon the Latvian and Luxembourg Presidencies to: Ensure the adoption of a NEC Directive which leads to the achievement of the 7 th EAP objective by 2030, i.e. attains "levels of air quality that do not give rise to significant negative impacts on, and risks to human health and environment"; Support ambitious binding emission reduction commitments for 2020, 2025 and 2030, including 2020 levels that go significantly beyond those of the revised Gothenburg Protocol and the 2005 Thematic Strategy on Air Pollution (TSAP); Support the inclusion of emission reduction commitments for methane to start in 2020 and the inclusion of emission reduction commitments for mercury for all three target years; Strengthen EU-wide requirements to cut emissions from the most polluting sectors as a way to help Member States to achieve ambitious reductions. This includes measures to limit emissions from agriculture, road and non-road, shipping, domestic solid-fuel combustion and solvents; Ensure better coherence between the objectives of the different pieces of EU air legislation (e.g. NEC and Ambient Air Quality) with the aim of achieving the EU s 7 th EAP health and environmental objectives by 2030; Improve the enforceability of the NEC Directive, in particular through the inclusion of an express right of access to justice for citizens and NGOs; Support the alignment of EU ambient air quality limit values with the latest health recommendations developed by the WHO before

8 In relation to the Medium Scale Combustion Plants Directive: Support alignment of the emission limit values with what is achievable by the use of best available techniques (BAT), as indicated in the benchmark values proposed; Support bringing forward the deadline for compliance with emission limit values for existing plants to before 2020 and make sure new plants are required to comply upon the entry into force of the Directive; Support the introduction of an integrated permitting regime in order to take into account the specific conditions where installations are located, for instance in densely populated areas, as well as other relevant environmental impacts, and ensure early and effective public participation; Strengthen the emissions monitoring regime. 4. FIGHTING CLIMATE CHANGE AND IMPROVING ENERGY SECURITY The EU s current climate and energy policies adopted in 2008 are insufficient as a fair and effective contribution to addressing the climate crisis. The greenhouse gas reduction targets set, in combination with the large opportunities for use of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), and the counterproductive free allocations of emission rights under the Emissions Trading Scheme, undermine the credibility of the EU and an effective low-carbon objective triggering innovation inside the EU. In particular, because the EU has already reduced its emissions by 21.7% (as of 2012), even without relying on banked emission credits and sponsorship of CDM projects. This makes the case for moving to at least a 40% emission reduction target for 2020 in order to remain below the 1.5 C threshold all the more compelling and increases the probability of us meeting it. A further weakness of the current package is the lack of a binding target and adequate measures on energy savings. Even after the adoption of the Energy Efficiency Directive (EED), the EU is still not on track to meeting the goal to save 20% energy by 2020, which as such is a weak aspiration considering the technical potentials. Further measures, coupled with a binding target, are required to close the gap and to drive a cycle of innovative financing, to help leverage private third party capital. Consequently, it is crucial that the EU addresses the shortcomings of the past policies when developing the post-2020 framework for climate and energy policies. Three targets that are legally binding at national level can help tap into such substantial benefits as reduced energy costs, greater energy security and job creation (e.g achieving the 2020 energy savings target would create 2 million new jobs according the Commission estimates) as well as boost competitiveness and technological innovation. The EEB believes that the targets should be set at an adequate level to deliver at least 60% domestic GHG reductions, 40% end-use energy savings and a 45% increase in the share of renewable energy. Nevertheless, the European Commission s White Paper on the 2030 framework published in January 2014 failed to reflect the level of necessary action. Instead, it proposed a weak 40% 8

9 GHG target and a renewables target of at least 27%, which is barely more than business as usual. Discussions on energy savings were postponed until after the review of the Energy Efficiency Directive. It is now up to the EU leaders to agree on a more coherent and ambitious approach that reflects the realities of the need for urgent action both on halting climate change and improving Europe s energy security through investing in our main domestic sources of energy, namely energy efficiency and renewables. They have now committed to taking the decision by October Indeed, it is imperative that the targets are agreed swiftly in order for the EU to table its contribution towards the new international climate agreement due to be agreed in Once set, the targets must be followed by legislative proposals to provide the tools to reach them. Ambitious renewable energy policies need to be combined with effective policies to ensure that renewable energy development happens in a sustainable way. As part of the new climate and policy framework for 2030, new measures are needed to ensure that use of bioenergy happens in way that delivers true greenhouse gas savings, does not go beyond the limits of the EU s sustainable supply of biomass and minimizes harm to biodiversity, water and soil. Introducing more ambitious domestic climate policies that are consistent with remaining below the 1.5 C threshold also helps to address a number of the Europe 2020 objectives on building a green, low carbon economy combined with resource efficiency. The EU must also offer sufficient and credible financial assistance to support climate mitigation and adaptation policies for developing countries. By continuing to invest in the UNFCCC process, the EU can work with others to secure a strong, fair and ambitious global climate change agreement. A new global legally binding instrument to enter into force in 2020 is set to be agreed in 2015 in Paris. A credible negotiation strategy for the EU in our view must be based on target proposals that will effectively reduce climate change to 1.5 C, guarantees for sufficient EU assistance to climate mitigation and adaptation policies for developing countries, and a credible, improved, domestic climate policy. An ambitious 2030 climate and energy policy framework is the EU s best leverage to ensure an international agreement that will halt dangerous climate change. Moreover, as the EU seeks to increase its energy security among other things through building better interconnections and diversifying supplies, it is crucial that strategic infrastructure projects respect the agreed climate objectives. The choice of projects of common interest (PCIs), for which there is an expedited approval process, must therefore also reflect the realistic energy demand in the EU based on future renewables development and energy efficiency improvements. The Commission published a proposal in 2013 that should fix the incomplete accounting of carbon emissions from biofuels use by including the known but unaccounted emissions from indirect land use change (ILUC) through a set of so called ILUC factors differentiated according to feedstock and biofuel type. The proposal also included a lowered mandate of 5% for biofuels made from foodcrops. It is currently highly uncertain if this will be decided before the end of

10 The EEB calls upon the Latvian and Luxembourg Presidencies to fight climate change by: o Adopting ambitious EU climate and energy policies to set us on a path to a fully green economy that reduce energy dependency, improve energy security, create longterm jobs and ensure a better quality of life for all. In particular, they should aim for: Agreement on an EU climate and energy policy framework for 2030, building on binding targets on EU and national level for greenhouse gas emission reductions (at least 60% domestic), the share of renewable energy in the energy mix (45%) and energy savings (40% end-use); Action to meet at least a 30% greenhouse gas reduction by 2020 through domestic action, while working towards a 40% domestic reductions scenario through an ambitious 2030 framework; Structural measures to make the ETS fully effective with 100% auctioning of permits, cancelling of surplus allowances and a significant share of revenue channelled to investments in renewables and energy efficiency; Agreement on the EU s contribution towards the Green Climate Fund, which should amount to at least 35 billion per year by 2020 in additional money to developing countries for mitigation and adaptation support; Assess new areas of innovative and reliable financing for mitigation and adaptation needs; Ensure that EU energy infrastructure projects, including PCIs, respect the EU s climate goals and environmental requirements and objectives. The EEB furthermore calls upon the Latvian and Luxembourg Presidencies to reduce Europe s energy consumption in absolute terms through: o Ensuring the revision of the Energy Efficiency Directive makes the 20% energy savings target for 2020 legally binding, promotes ambitious implementation and sets a binding 40% target for 2030; o Agreeing a comprehensive set of policies and measures to support the 2030 target; o Ensuring that minimum energy efficiency requirements set out in the Best Available Techniques reference documents are fully implemented by industry; o Ensuring that the energy savings potentials linked to Ecodesign energy-related products are fully grasped by allocating the appropriate resources in the Commission, by requiring a better monitoring of the market and by improving the decisionmaking process with respect to the revision of already existing regulations; o Preparing the coordinated revision of the Energy Labelling Directive together with the Ecodesign Directive to increase consistency between the two pieces of legislation following a top runner approach and move towards energy sufficiency, rather than simply energy efficiency (absolute consumption reduction objective). 5. CREATING A CIRCULAR ECONOMY THROUGH BETTER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT Following the release of and debate over the Resource Efficiency Roadmap in 2012, a political agreement on the 7 th Environmental Action Programme in 2013 and a set of 10

11 recommendations from the European Resource Efficiency Platform in 2014, a first series of regulatory initiatives are now prepared and will result in official Commission proposals to be discussed under the Latvian and Luxembourg Presidencies in 2015 to translate political commitment into concrete measures. These will include a revision of the Energy Label Directive and certain aspects of the Ecodesign Directive, notably to unleash the still largely untapped potential for optimising resource use all along the life cycle of products put on the European market. The Waste Framework Directive will also be updated in 2015, together with the Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive and the Landfill Directive, forming the legislative core of the Circular Economy Package, to reinforce fundamental measures to move up the waste treatment hierarchy such as increased targets for prevention and recycling of waste, reinforcement of producer responsibility provisions and restrictions on landfilling and incineration of recyclable and compostable material. Additionally, first indicators and targets for monitoring resource efficiency in Europe will be communicated mid Considered in combination, the revision of the Ecodesign Directive and Waste Directives together with resource efficiency indicators could create the proper conditions for putting Europe firmly on track towards a resource efficient society and to take a clear leadership on circular economy, securing related investment and jobs, reducing dependency with regard critical resources import and contributing significantly to climate change mitigation and reducing our environmental impacts. In parallel to this revision work, efforts should be pursued to ensure a proper implementation of product and waste policy as a failure to do so would risk losing the opportunity for job creation and environmental benefits. The proper market surveillance required by an effective product policy as well as the proper inspections to guarantee compliant waste management depend on resource dedication, cooperation and intelligence sharing between Member States and specification of legal formulations, and not that much on the level of ambition of legal provisions and targets. Other initiatives should also be reinforced consistently with these key pillars for a European circular economy, such as the European Ecolabel, the green public procurement provisions and the development of robust footprinting methodologies and their use in appropriate policy instruments to guide consumers, authorities and business groups towards more sustainable products, while reducing the proliferation of green claims. EEB therefore calls on the Latvian and Luxembourg Presidencies to: Ensure that the revised Ecodesign and Waste policies lead to ambitious requirements with regard to resource use in our products and waste management practices that bring about a reduction in the absolute amount of resources we consume, including but not limited to energy; Promote through product policy the durability and reparability of products and through waste policy the prevention of waste as the highest priority; Adopt an ambitious revision of the packaging and packaging waste Directive, notably increasing the respective recycling targets and refining the essential requirements to create the sound conditions for packaging material optimisation from the design stage; Ensure that the information schemes to guide consumers and public and corporate procurement towards the greenest and highest performing products are developed to 11

12 ensure full trust by potential end users and act effectively as key instruments to transform the market; Set the necessary provisions and certainties in the revised legislation to guarantee a correct monitoring of the achievements and lever a proper enforcement; Encourage the use of European wide indicators such as total material consumption, water and CO2 footprinting, and land use. 6 IMPROVING ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE Better implementation and enforcement of EU law Striving for better implementation and enforcement of environmental law has always been an essential part of the EEB s activities. The EU has an impressive body of environmental law and yet it is making only slow progress in solving its environmental problems, partly because of increasing pressures resulting from the economic model but also due to poor implementation. The right tools, the political will to apply them and transparency in their application are at the heart of improving implementation of environmental law. The Commission took a step towards addressing these issues through its Communication on better implementation published in March 2012 (full title: Improving the delivery of benefits from EU environment measures: building confidence through better knowledge and responsiveness ). However, the need for putting it into practice remains. The EEB therefore calls on the Latvian and Luxembourg Presidencies to: In response to the 2012 Commission Communication on this subject, broaden the debate on improving implementation and enforcement of EU environmental law including on sharing of best practice, granting public access to correlation tables and implementation reports, systematic reporting and monitoring; Encourage and support Commission initiatives to deal with its enforcement obligations in a transparent and timely manner; Increase public involvement, through open and transparent infringement procedures with improved access to administrative documents and access to justice, as a minimum meeting the requirements of the Aarhus Convention; Ensure that all drafts of new or revised legislation are fully in line with the Aarhus Convention; Environmental Inspections Environmental inspections are an essential tool to ensure that European environmental law is applied more consistently. The non-binding 2001 Recommendation on Minimum Criteria for Environmental Inspections has clearly not achieved the desired results. One of the evident problems at the Member State level is the divergence in the quality of national inspection and enforcement regimes. Therefore, the EU needs binding legislation as requested by the European Parliament in its 2001 Resolution. Enforcement capacities also need to be strengthened at the EU level. The Commission has been preparing a legislative proposal for some months and this is expected to be published during

13 The EEB therefore calls on the Latvian and Luxembourg Presidencies to: If not published in 2014, call on the Commission to table a draft horizontal EU Directive establishing minimum standards for environmental inspections, reminding that it is an obligation under the 7EAP to table the Directive; Once such a proposal is published, swiftly start work in Council working groups; Draw on the 2001 European Parliament and Council Recommendation on Minimum Criteria for Environmental Inspections in the Member States; Ensure the inclusion of principles of minimum inspection duties and regimes, Member States reporting requirements to the Commission and a high level of transparency granting the public timely and easy access to the reports; Introduce measures for better prevention and control of unsafe or even unauthorised activities with a potential to harm the environment and human health; Call for strengthened capacities within the Commission to address implementation problems in the Member States; Ensure that the horizontal law will never weaken stronger provisions that may exist in sectoral law. Environmental Liability Directive Back in 2004, the EEB very much welcomed the Environmental Liability Directive (ELD) as a new useful tool, based on the polluter-pays principle, for the prevention and remediation of environmental damage to nature, water and soil. However, as a Framework Directive, it leaves a wide margin of discretion to Member States on important issues such as the scope, defences, exemptions and financial security. The application of the ELD has remained very limited and the Directive has not delivered what the EEB had hoped for. According to the ELD, the Commission shall submit a report to the European Parliament and to the Council before 30 April 2014 including proposals for its revision in This report having been delayed, a proposal for revision will only be tabled during the second term of The EEB is hoping to see considerable improvements leading to better and more EU-wide harmonized application of the ELD. The EEB therefore urges the Latvian and Luxembourg Presidencies to: Call on the Commission to make good progress with the preparation of the draft law; Once the Commission draft has been tabled, start work in the Council working group with a view to achieving a progressive outcome; Reject any weakening of the current directive during the revision process. Access to justice There is an urgent need to re-launch negotiations on the proposed EU Directive on Access to Justice, originally tabled by the Commission in The necessity for such a Directive 13

14 has been repeatedly stressed not only by civil society organisations in the EU Member States but also by judges and other legal experts, as means to improve implementation and enforcement of EU law. It is further underlined by a number of studies showing considerable variations in the quality of access to justice between Member States, by the findings of the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee which have revealed the failure of certain EU Member States to properly apply the access to justice pillar of the Convention, and by rulings of the European Court of Justice, e.g. in a case concerning Slovakia (C- 240/09) in March These have added legal arguments to the political ones in favour of a horizontal approach to improving access to justice in environmental matters throughout the EU. The Commission s Communication on better implementation published in March 2012 has referred to strengthening access to justice as one of a number of measures to improve implementation of EU environmental law. The Seventh Environmental Action Programme also refers to the need for access to justice in environmental matters in line with the Aarhus Convention and developments brought about by the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty and recent case law of the European Court of Justice. Unfortunately, under the REFIT process the Commission withdrew the 2003 draft directive before having tabled a new one. Its services have however been working to prepare a new legislative proposal and it is expected that this will be published before the end of 2014 or early in The EEB therefore urges the Latvian and Luxembourg Presidencies: To call on the Commission to publish the draft Directive on Access to Justice as swiftly as possible in case it has not been published in To convene Council working groups immediately after the draft has been presented with a view to achieving the adoption as soon as possible of a Directive that establishes a minimum framework for access to justice which fully respects the Aarhus Convention and the related jurisprudence. REFIT Following the launch of the Commission s Regulatory Fitness and Performance Programme (REFIT) in second half of 2013, the Commission produces an annual Communication and scoreboard in which it reports on actions taken. In its first 2014 Communication, the Commission announced the withdrawal of a number of environmental policy proposals (Soil and Access to Justice), assessments of others (Ecolabel, EMAS, CO2 and cars, energy label and Natura 2000) and work done on yet again others (REACH), as well as a number of horizontal initiatives. Although some of these, such as improved impact assessment procedures, may improve EU governance in for example the agriculture policy areas, others such as Cumulative Costs Assessments (CCA) will simply help industry to argue against further regulatory action that would require them to internalise externalities. The fact that it is in particular energy intensive industries, such as steel, aluminium and refineries, as well as chemicals, that are identified for such CCA at a time when Europe is debating new climate and energy policies at the very least suggests this. Particularly worrying is that, despite the fact that environmental regulation only contributes 1% to the total amount of unnecessary administrative burden, it continues to feature high in 14

15 the Commission s REFIT programme. The proposals as regards REACH are a case in point, where the Commission is suggesting slowing down even further an already too slow authorisation process. Equally worrying is the focus on creating exemptions or lighter regimes for small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and micro enterprises. Given that SMEs make up approximately 90% of the EU economy, it would render EU policies ineffective. A positive aspect of the 2014 REFIT Communication however is the Commission s rejection of the creation of a new external quality control entity, as advocated by some members of the HLG on Administrative Burden Reduction, as this would do little to improve EU governance while creating another potential hurdle to effective policy making. The EEB therefore considers that, without some significant changes to the REFIT programme, there is a high risk for REFIT to become a deregulation a la carte exercise for Member States. The EEB therefore calls on the Latvian and Luxembourg Presidencies to: Ensure that the Environment Council will play a role in developing conclusions on the environment relevant aspects of the 2014 REFIT Communication and in particular critically assess the way environmental policies are being assessed; In particular, insist on the importance of improving REACH implementation in order to improve chemical safety, not hampering it on grounds of administrative burden. 7. AVOIDING HARM TO BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEMS Biodiversity and ecosystems are in decline and with it the services our human wellbeing depends on. Globally and at the EU level, measures have been taken to reverse the trends, both through legislative means and political commitments. In 2011, an EU 2020 Biodiversity Strategy was put in place to enable the EU and its Member States to reach its headline target of halting the loss of biodiversity and degradation of ecosystem services by 2020 as well as contribute to global Aichi targets adopted under the CBD. The Strategy also included commitments to restore degraded ecosystems where physically possible. The main pressures such as unsustainable agricultural practices, modification of ecosystems for energy production, and chemical and air pollution, however, persist and are not effectively tackled. In 2012, the EEA and the Commission through various assessments indicated that more than half of Europe's surface water bodies are in less than good ecological status and that by 2015, Member States measures are expected to reduce this to only slightly less than half of surface waters will give an indication on how all habitats and species protected under the Birds and Habitats Directive are doing and how far we are from reaching the set objectives. The first outcomes of the work on mapping and assessment of ecosystems and their services (MAES) should by then also become available. 2 EEA 2012 State of Water reports and the Commission s assessment of the first River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs). 15

16 2015 therefore seems an excellent opportunity for Member States to look at the progress they have achieved in protecting and restoring ecosystems and important services they provide, such as flood protection, clean water and air, and disease control, and commit to new measures that will improve the implementation of current EU biodiversity and related legislation and ensure the integration of nature considerations in policies with the highest negative impact. This will become even more relevant with the risk of dangerous levels of warming growing each year and the resulting rise in intensity and frequency of extreme weather events such as heat waves, floods and droughts. Only healthy ecosystems will allow us to effectively mitigate and adapt to the changing climate. Committed action by the Presidencies and the Commission will be required to put the EU on track to reach its biodiversity targets and objectives. Presidencies should make ecosystem protection and restoration therefore a top priority in 2015 as this would in the mid to long term create the basis for a prosperous and sustainable economy. As such discussions on biodiversity should foremost focus on ways to avoid further degradation and loss of biodiversity and restore degraded ecosystems, building on improved integration of biodiversity in policies primarily responsible for biodiversity loss and improved implementation and stringent enforcement of existing EU legislation. The new cycle of river basin management plans (RBMPs) will offer an opportunity for Member States to prepare measures, including on protected areas, to bring the majority of EU water ecosystems in good status by New opportunities will also be offered to Member States through the newly adopted Regulation on Invasive Alien Species (IAS), IAS being one of the main drivers of biodiversity loss. However, if the Regulation, which will enter into force in 2015, is to effectively deliver on the EU s biodiversity headline target, ambitious implementation at both EU and Member State level will be crucial. As a follow up to the land as a resource Communication that the Commission is scheduled to adopt in 2015, Presidencies should deliver a new impetus in the discussion on soil protection in Europe and ensure that commitments are made to adopt EU action of a legal nature on preventing additional soil sealing or mitigating its effects. The EEB therefore calls on the Latvian and Luxembourg Presidencies to: Adopt Council Conclusions on the Mid Term Review of the Biodiversity Strategy to renew Member States commitments for its implementation and, where appropriate, strengthening; Put the onus on the need to avoid harm to biodiversity by building on the improved implementation and stringent enforcement of existing EU legislation, such as the Birds and Habitats Directives, the Water Framework Directive and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive; Explore ways for delivering actual integration of biodiversity in other policies, such as agriculture and energy; Promote adoption of ambitious RBMPs under the Water Framework Directive, with improved measures for areas protected for the conservation of habitats and species with a view to achieve favourable conservation status of these habitats and species. Ensure an ambitious implementation of the IAS Regulation, including through the development of an extensive list of species of Union concern; 16

17 Achieve progress in promoting green infrastructure as a way to redirect investments from expensive grey infrastructure such as dams, levies and canals to green infrastructure such as floodplains and interconnected natural areas. 8. PHASING OUT HAZARDOUS CHEMICALS At the Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development on 4 September 2002, the EU committed to produce and use chemicals in ways that would minimise adverse effects on human health and the environment by The Commission s White Paper On the Strategy for a future Chemicals Policy of 13 February 2001 had already mentioned that when considering only the known chemicals, about 1,400 substances would qualify as substances of very high concern (SVHCs). The REACH Regulation of 18 December 2006 set as its core objective to replace SVHCs with safer alternatives (through the authorisation regime) or by restricting their manufacturing, placing on the market and use in order to ensure a high level of protection of human health and the environment. In particular, restrictions should continue to be introduced for substances which are carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic to reproduction cat 1 or 2 (corresponding to cat 1A and 1B according to the new CLP Regulation) and could be used by consumers. Seven years after entry into force of REACH, the number of substances identified for substitution is only 151 with an average annual increase of 20 substances. The Commission had made a commitment to have all relevant currently known SVHC included in the candidate list by However, so far only 22 substances have made it to the official authorisation list (Annex XIV), inclusion on which means that substitution requirements apply. Proceeding under business as usual scenarios and stopping short at adding to the candidate list (which is the first but not last step for substitution) means that the EU is going to fail to fulfil its commitment spectacularly. Furthermore, there are well-founded concerns about a specific category of SVHCs with disrupting effects on hormones or endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs). EDCs are suspected of playing a role in disrupting human brain development, the deterioration of reproductive health, the increased incidence of male and female hormonerelated cancers and the increase in cardiovascular disease, obesity and diabetes, among other adverse effects and 2015 are critical years for the authorisation process, as the Commission will adopt the first decisions on the applications for authorisation of use in the EU of substances of very high concern. Furthermore, REACH will be reviewed regarding information requirements for low production volume substances (around 20,000 substances below 10tpa across the EU) and polymers (today, around 70,000 polymer substances are placed on the EU market at volumes above one tonne per year without any information requirement under REACH). The quality of information submitted by industry on the chemicals they manufacture, use or import under REACH registration process is still a major challenge. 69% of the registration dossiers is not in compliance with the legislation. 17